Self Publishing--Thoughts?

[[deleted user]]

Lauryn, I will try not to discount your statements because of your obvious bias.

I agree that some self-published works are good. But there is too much of a bad rep that it's almost not worth it to test the waters, as a writer or a reader.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

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, what matters most is the quality of the book, regardless of how it was published. I don't think anyone was saying that all self-published books are horrible or that all traditionally published books are great; that's obviously untrue. ;) Anyway, I think this thread is mostly concerned with what we would choose for ourselves, and not about what we've read. But, you make good points.

[Nermeen]

Well, if it was about what you would choose for yourself, if you had the opportunity to self-publish, why wouldn't you? I mean, what do you have to loose by self-publishing? I don't think its amazing or anything like that but I just don't get why people hate it...

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Nermeen wrote: "Well, if it was about what you would choose for yourself, if you had the opportunity to self-publish, why wouldn't you? I mean, what do you have to loose by self-publishing? I don't think its amazi..."

I don't hate self-publishing, but I don't feel it is right for me. In a nutshell, I'm pretty paranoid and insecure, and I'd like to have some professionals standing in my way so I don't publish something before it's ready. And I feel that a lot of self-publishers do just that. By no means am I saying that all self-publishers do that, and many of them self-publish quality work. Personally, I would rather have the help of some experts along the way. For me, it would just feel more fulfilling.

[Nermeen]

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Nermeen wrote: "Well, if it was about what you would choose for yourself, if you had the opportunity to self-publish, why wouldn't you? I mean, what do you have to loose by self-publishing? I don't..."

Yeah, I get where you're coming from and personally I wouldn't want to self-publish either cause I agree with what you said about the book not being ready... but I was just saying that its a viable option for some people.

[Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.]

Yes, I think for some people it works quite well.

[Nepeta]

Here are my thoughts on self-publishing.

I have read some very good self published books and I have read SCUM that has been mainstreamed published, so I completely disagree with some people here.

I would choose self publishing any day over mainstream publishing. At least, with self publishing, you don't have to sell out. Don't think that mainstream publishers are looking for talent. They're looking for money.

For example, how many mainstream publishers do you know that would publish my book about a cyborg girl without a love interest who isn't afraid to be herself and stand up for herself as opposed to some sappy teenager romance story where the man has to do everything for her? Of course, the romance story would win, because mine wouldn't sell.

Money. It's all about the money for big publishing houses.

Nep out.

[Amy]

True, but you're going to have that what-people-will-buy problem no matter what. I mean, if a mainstream publisher can't sell it, you might have trouble as well. Obviously there are ways you can persevere, and there are people that get it right, but what sucks is that a LOT of people just want to read bad romances.

(I don't tend to give my main characters love interests either.)

[Nepeta]

No, I do completely understand, but I just want to say I'm published. Most of the time, you can't life off as a writer. I understand.
Unfortunately, right now, female characters are supposed to be weak and beautiful, and if I have one that's scarred and strong, it doesn't seem right. It just makes me angry.

[Amy]

I don't think that's really fair. I mean, just look at the favorite YA books on NPR. The top four are

1. Harry Potter: Full of nonbeautiful strong females
2. The Hunger Games: Katniss has a whole host of problems, but weakness isn't one.
3. To Kill A Mockingbird. Scout. Nuff said.
4. The Fault In Our Stars: Hazel was physically weak, but she wasn't beautiful or mentally weak or anything. And so was Gus, which was the point.

All those people are "scarred."

A very very small fraction of the world lives off writing. but we already knew this.

[Nepeta]

I will not comment on The Fault In Our Stars or To Kill A Mockingbird because I've never read them.

I will agree with Harry Potter, but The Hunger Games to me, was just a big pile of bleh. The book itself was just constructed very weakly, so I can't say I agree with that statement.

Yes, but unfortunately, every story now a days has to have a tacked on romance.

[[deleted user]]

I'm gonna go off-topic here to pursue the female protagonist thing.

One thing to understand about fads in literature is that each one is in response to current events and previous fads. The literature transition over the last ten years can be described as such:

Young fantasy (Harry Potter) -- fantastical world with deep characters, the protagonist being male

Paranormal romance (Twilight) -- fantastical world with (sometimes) deep characters; protagonist is female in reaction to the explosion in male characters

Dystopia (The Hunger Games) -- realistic/negative world counters fantastical world; female protagonist is stronger in this era in response to paranormal "weakness" in the female

Reflective realistic fiction (John Green?) -- realistic/negative world with more real-life issues; mix of male and female to respond to the heavy favoritism of one or the other

I didn't really go into details, but I could. I believe the last one in the list to be our current interest. Keep an eye out for continued changes in the trends.

[Nepeta]

Don't forget the abusive males! You can never have too many abusive males!

[Amy]

Yeah, I had issues with the Hunger Games. I'm not talking about the book as a whole, I'm talking about Katniss as a popular character.


There are lots of fantasy books with main characters being female. (I don't read a whole lot of fantay, but I'll ask Mimi when I can hear her clearly. XD)

Paranormal romance is ridiculous. But I'm sure there are some with female characters.

I don't know what you're saying about general fiction: that John Green writes books about males whose only goal is to idolize a female? Because... I mean, there are boys with crushes or whatever, but that's not the same thing.

There are thousands of books in each of the categories you listed, and I can think of about a dozen examples to counter each of them. I might if I get a chance later on.

[Colby]

It should be noted that lots of guys DO idolize that one girl in a way. The characters were created like that because that's how we act. John Green's books just delve into it, as do others in the genre (And most genres, as it is.)

[[deleted user]]

Amy, I'm a little confused. It seems like you are trying to argue with me. But it's not me you're arguing with. It's the whole of society, as indicated by numerous awards and bestseller lists. You look at the whole of history and you notice that each literary time period counteracts the one previous to it. You look at the last ten years, and whether you think the books are good or not, people are reading certain books with close similarities. I just put the leaders (not necessarily the instigators) of each as examples. There are exceptions to every rule, yes, but we are not talking about "best-selling" trade paperbacks sold in grocery stores. We're talking about the big guns. The stuff that sold millions of copies. And, when you look at the leaders of each of these trends of popularity, you will see an archetype for many followers. If you would like me to compile lists of popular books I know of that are in each "era," I'd be happy to do so.

[[deleted user]]

Also, you pulled the John Green interpretation out of thin air. I don't know what you saw in my comment that would make you think something so incorrect. I said that this current genre focuses on real-life issues with both male and female protagonists. In the early 2000s, fantasy was the big thing. The pendulum began to swing toward realism with futuristic, rather possible dystopia, and now is beginning to peak at the other side of the spectrum with realistic fiction. As for the gender of the main character, there is an obvious polarity for the first few trends. When you look at YA fantasy for the early 2000s, many protagonists are male. Then, to reach out to girls in the fantasy realm, paranormal became the big thing. But this is not of interest to the masses of male readers, so dystopia portrayed much more rugged females in more action-focused plots. Now, there is beginning to be a balance, with both male and female protagonists that all readers can relate to.

[Nepeta]

I've actually never heard of John Green in my life.

[[deleted user]]

I'd never heard of him until a couple weeks ago. I haven't read his stuff, though it seems to be about people in tragic, real-life situations...and it's rather popular these days.

[Amy]

John Green is also well known here on the interwebs for the youtube channel Vlogbrothers that he runs with his brother.

Yeah, Taylor, I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say about John Green. And when did you think I was arguing with society? I was just pointing out that not all books contain weak females in need of saving. In fact, most don't.

[Amy]

Well, I think publishing companies are interested in the money. That's their job. It's a business. It's what sells.

And that's true. But I mean, I guess my thing is, if a traditional publisher can't sell your book, why do you think you'll be able to? When you're buying a book in a book store, you can generally assume it's not self published; I'm thinking about buying things off CreateSpace, et cetera.

[Nepeta]

Well, Amy, I don't mean to sound rude, but this is getting me a little riled up.

Perhaps not all authors want to completely have their books sell tons of copies. I think my biggest dream is that, even if two people read my story and they get the message, I'll know that at least I've taught people something.

I'd never sell out and write a paranormal romance about a girl getting saved. I want to teach girls that they don't need a man to be happy in their lives and even after something tragic happens, they can go on with their lives and find happiness in them.
I could care less about the money.

[Annemarie, hi]

Nepeta wrote: "Well, Amy, I don't mean to sound rude, but this is getting me a little riled up.

Perhaps not all authors want to completely have their books sell tons of copies. I think my biggest dream is that, ..."

Some people want to write because they want to you know, be employed by their writing. It's not like they want to be rich or anything, most people just want to get published and sell enough so they can live. Chances are you can't get enough money to live from self-publishing.

[Amy]

Well, Nepeta, I don't mean to sound rude, but this is getting me a little riled up.

Perhaps not all authors that are successful DO write that stuff. I have already given you examples of the top four most loved YA novels that aren't ANYTHING like that. So... yeah.

I don't think that everyone who writes paranormal romance about girls getting saved is selling out, it's just that they had an idea. Except... name one paranormal romance that is about girls being saved? Twilight is the obvious example, and I hated those books, but she DOES save everyone ELSE in the second and fourth. So... yeah. Examples? Please?

And maybe you should stop reading paranormal romance. Or maybe you should START, so that you realize they're not all the same. And I don't even like that genre.

Edit: I don't think you can really live off most writing, but... self publishing less, because you don't get any royalties or anything.

All authors pretty much want the same thing. To write and have people read and connect with their writing. Nobody ever goes into writing for the MONEY.

[Nepeta]

Chances are you can't get enough money to live from regular publishing, either. It's worse with regular publishing, because the publisher's like to take away from your money, too.

I'm a realist.

[Amy]

You can't get enough money from publishing, period. All writers pretty much want the same thing: to write, and to have people connect with their writing.

It's not exactly a job people go into for the MONEY. Because there isn't much.

Most authors have day jobs.

[Nepeta]

Exactly. I have a day job and I'm actually studying animation. I already know that there are many talented animators, so I'm just going to make an animated web series when I'm good enough.

I'm not in it for the money, and I think authors who are only in it for the money aren't really authors at all. Writing is a work of art.

[Amy]

I don't think there CAN be an author that's only in it for the money, because there's pretty much no money, so it'd be... kind of dumb. And they wouldn't get any money from it anyway.

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Getting into it for the money, probably not. But oh boy are there defo lots who are continuing it for the money.

[Nepeta]

I can name an author who's in it for the money!

CASSANDRA CLARE.

*Absconds*

[Amy]

And Cassandra Clare is doing well. Good for her. There are many people that enjoy her books, and I'm sure she enjoys writing them.

Being able to live off your writing is an accomplishment. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Anyway, speaking as someone who has written books for no money and with no plans to ever get money for them... if you're ONLY in it for the money, you probably don't care so much, and that's a hell of a lot of stress to go through if you don't care.

[Nepeta]

Yes, but her books aren't very well constructed.

The problem with society today is that they read books that have no substance and literature is no longer considered an art form.

[Amy]

That's because you only read paranormal romance that you want to hate, and classic novels.

If you read some books written in the last thirty years that were good (Barbra Kingsolver, John Green for YA, Markus Zusak, John Irving, Rick Riordan, Cornelia Funke, Patrick Ness, Ellen Klages,) then maybe you wouldn't, you know, limit your potential reading experience by making massive generalizations.

[Nepeta]

First of all, I've read some good YA books.

Yes, I love Riordan. And Lemony Snicket and JK Rowling.

I also read Sci-Fi. Steampunk in general.

Also, comic books.

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Amy wrote: "That's because you only read paranormal romance that you want to hate, and classic novels.

If you read some books written in the last thirty years that were good (Barbra Kingsolver, John Green fo..."

I am disappointed that your list lacks all NEXT LEVEL stuff. It's just current level, man. What's up with that.

[Maria [the clockwork creeps on useless lives], Butts butts]

I happen to disagree with you Nepeta.

You are talking as if you are the only person in society who believes in "real" literature. Which is entirely untrue.

People still write to create an art form. People still read to experience substance and literature. You are not the only person who wants to read good books, or write them.
Everybody who writes wants to create something that will satisfy them.

However, literature has changed. Just like art has started to have a modern uptake.
Some people don't write to try to make people think a lot, just like some people don't paint to try to make people delve into the philosophy of it.
They sometimes try to write just to please people, or amuse people.
And that's okay.
It may not be your style of book, but it can be for others.

Society is not all failing in the world of literature.

(Also tell me if something I said makes no sense. I can clarify, I am just writing this in an overly tired state,)

[Nepeta]

No, Maria, I understand, and there is nothing wrong with what you said.

You are absolutely right. There are some modern masterpieces out there, and yes, not everyone likes the same thing.

I understand, but a book should at least have some substance.
They shouldn't be about only beautiful people and pretty girls. My problem with YA is that it is shallow.

What are these books teaching us? A book should always teach something in my opinion.

[Amy]

So if you've read lots of good books, why are you saying all books suck?

Some people read books to Broaden Their Minds and Ensnare Their Senses. Some people read books because they're frustrated with their lives and they want to laugh about something. People write for the same reason. There are different types of people and different types of books.

And having read some classics- let's take Les Mis- I can say that that wasn't exactly the pinnacle of structure. It relied entirely on chance meetings and shallow characters. Cosette and Fantine aren't exactly strong female characters. Or Jane Eyre. Not exactly a feminist role model: she's shown as one, but she just got all her money from a random dead relative, and then she goes and marries a guy who locked his wife in the attic.

The only woman in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is an overbearing fascist, and all of Shakespeare's women are ridiculous. (Beatrice being tricked into getting married, and that's a happy ending?)

[Elliott]

As Maria said, just because you don't like reading something doesn't mean that other people won't. I'm definitely not a good person to be calling someone out for having an elitist mindset since I tend to think I'm better than a lot of the people at my school (which is something I'm working on because it's wrong and I hate myself when I do that) but you shouldn't judge people for reading things that you find to be mindless and ridiculous. That doesn't make them idiots. It just means they have different taste in books. Maybe they haven't read any "good literature." Maybe books like that bore them. Maybe they want to read to escape and they don't want to read to think. It isn't your place to tell people that they're stupid for liking a certain type of book.

John Green is, in my opinion, an extremely intelligent person and he liked Twilight to some extent. So. He's obviously not stupid just because he enjoyed it.

[Nepeta]

Excuse me while I try to take in that comment about Jane Eyre..............

Yes, Rochester locked up his wife in the attic because she was a lunatic.
And Les Mis is a masterpiece in its own right. The characters may be lacking on something, but you feel for them. I don't know about you, but I cried when Eponine died. In the musical, as well.
Jane Eyre is not a feminist, but she is a strong woman. Even though she loves Rochester, she leaves him. In the end, she comes back for him, but she takes care of him. She loved him and it wasn't stupid teenage infatuation.

[Maria [the clockwork creeps on useless lives], Butts butts]

A book can also just teach you to laugh when you are having a bad day. Books are used for all sorts of purposes, like Amy said.

You are extremely generalizing YA fiction. I think that a lot of it is great and makes you think, but in different ways than "adult" fiction.

One of the smartest men I know, my mom's best friend, reads YA and thinks that they are intriguing to him and help him think in new ways.

[Nepeta]

But seriously, I'm going to publish my story about Jane and her hot vampire boyfriend, Jake.

[Baxter, butts butts butts]

Lav [until your heart stops beating so fast] wrote: "It isn't your place to tell people that they're stupid for liking a certain type of book. "

False.

[Nepeta]

0_0

John Green liked Twilight? Okay...I'm going to slowly back away. First of all, I NEVER called anyone stupid for liking a certain type of book.

[Elliott]

Baxter wrote: "Lav [until your heart stops beating so fast] wrote: "It isn't your place to tell people that they're stupid for liking a certain type of book. "

False."

False? Elaborate.

[Maria [the clockwork creeps on useless lives], Butts butts]

Since when has teenage infatuation been any stupider than adult infatuation? I'm just curious. Because everybody seems to shame on any teenage love, but they'd be more accepting if it was slightly adapted to an adult setting.

[Amy]

Um... when did she fall in love with Rochester? It seemed like it was just because he was the first eligible male she ever met, and it's basically like BAM they're in love. Random proposal. and Jane needed the money from the random dead man to make it work.

Have you ever considered that she was a lunatic because her husband locked her in the friggin attic after she was a bit promiscuous?

Also, I didn't cry when Eponine died. All she was was a girl who had the hots for a guy who didn't love her back. So, kudos to her for being able to die for this man, but... >.< She could have had a life. And then there was freaking Cosette.

But we're not here to debate "classic" lit. so I'll just sleep

[Nepeta]

Oh, no,no,no,no.

50 Shades of Blegh is just as bad as any teenage infatuation. And it's with two (highly irresponsible) adults. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[Maria [the clockwork creeps on useless lives], Butts butts]

Nepeta wrote: "Oh, no,no,no,no.

50 Shades of Blegh is just as bad as any teenage infatuation. And it's with two (highly irresponsible) adults. Sorry if I didn't make that clear."

Okay, that's called erotica, not an adult fiction novel, and I don't think it's comparable.

[Nepeta]

Cosette, I hated her, so I'm not going to say anything.

Um...Rochester's wife came from a family of lunatics from what I recalled.