The "You're Not A Real Writer If You Self Publish" Thread

[NikkiBastion]

Are you a writer? Of course you are. So am I. Writers usually know it from an early age. We've all had one or both of these fantasies our entire lives: to be published, and/or to be a top selling author. Most of us, I would think, can't "not" write and the dreaded Block is to writers what an STD is to a slut, throwing a wrench into that hedonistic pleasure all around...

It's common to pursue being published and learning the trade and business, how to write proposals, finding agents, and then if and when a book deal happens, there would be advances and royalties and the feeling of accomplishment that comes with seeing your work in print, knowing people are buying it, enjoying it, and eager to get more of what you do. I'd imagine that's a heady, elated feeling.

But it's the 21st century and digital products and tools are swiftly evolving. POD books, LuLu, DIY ebooks - it's all now easily and freely available to anyone who is interested enough to use them to write up the work, edit it, eliminate the middle man, and put it out there...even undercutting publishing houses and making all the profits.

So why is self publishing still so frowned upon? Why is it if you say you self published your book suddenly it "doesn't count" or it's "not a real book" (especially if it's in a fully digital format). Is it just eons of a paradigm refusing to shift or is there really something inherently "unreal" about it if you do it yourself? Can you be entirely self published and hold your head up?

I've looked into this and find this stigma really fascinating, the way it's approached. It's awesome that with LuLu you can print out a book and show it to people and go "Look! I got my book published!" and everyone's impressed and dropping your name and they're all proud of you and envious that you made it...until you explain it was through LuLu, you just had a copy printed on demand and suddenly it's like the bottom drops out...the pride and awe seems to be replaced with a smirk, as if you cheated.

Is it really that required to be taken seriously to have a middle man intercept your work and decide for you whether or not it's worth publication? Is it a requirement that you have to go through a slew of rejections before you get cut a break only to have some show that you're dedicated and persistent enough, therefore you're finally allowed to play in the real author's hangout?

Where is this coming from?

How do you guys perceive self publishing as it regards your "success" as a published author?

Or is this all just some residual fear from an old way of doing things that is colliding with the world of digital products that anyone can embrace?


As for me, the one area in "getting" published that has always been a potential sore spot and something I'd almost surely balk at is the idea of an editor changing up your entire book, wanting this and that removed, changed, something else added - whatever, changing it and the risk of it turning into something else entirely that goes against what you were inspired to begin with to express. Second to that is the idea of rejection - not being rejected per se, but the idea of some stranger who doesn't know me, nothing about what I do, or the book deciding the work shouldn't be made available at all, as if they'd be speaking not only for the worth of my work but for the rest of humanity.

So, ego thing for sure but it'd been the place that always gave me pause from actually pursing the task of "getting" published. Granted, I don't want to put out something that's crap, and I would welcome an objective editor in that respect to make sure it read well...but I am a tremendous fan of the whole concept of self publishing, to be able to get it out there, see it in print, book form, even ebooks (I love my Kindle, so I'm over the "it's not a real book" phase). To me, doing it at all is something I'd consider an accomplishment and a success. If even one person shelled out a buck to read it, I'd be flattered by that for sure, and probably so tickled I'd give them their dollar back out of gratitude they were interested enough to purchase it

(Clearly I'm not in it for wealth...)

I'm in it for the publication, the distribution, and the very real experiment of seeing how anything I'd do in the wild would play out - to me, if I self published, put it out there, promoted it as if it's as real a book as anything else on the shelves, and people began to buy it, read it, share it, comment on it, and the community helped sales grow - that's my definition of success as a "top selling author" - not the opinion of a publisher somewhere deciding this or that isn't something anyone would be interested in because it's not what they do. Since I would weight my work's value on how well it was doing - whether via income or readership at all, I see no problem with the fact it'd be completely self published...to me, it's a book...so it counts.

Am I wrong here? Missing something?

What's your take? Are you a cheating self publisher or a "real" author?

 

[lovecraft68]

Are you a writer? Of course you are. So am I. Writers usually know it from an early age. We've all had one or both of these fantasies our entire lives: to be published, and/or to be a top selling author. Most of us, I would think, can't "not" write and the dreaded Block is to writers what an STD is to a slut, throwing a wrench into that hedonistic pleasure all around...

It's common to pursue being published and learning the trade and business, how to write proposals, finding agents, and then if and when a book deal happens, there would be advances and royalties and the feeling of accomplishment that comes with seeing your work in print, knowing people are buying it, enjoying it, and eager to get more of what you do. I'd imagine that's a heady, elated feeling.

But it's the 21st century and digital products and tools are swiftly evolving. POD books, LuLu, DIY ebooks - it's all now easily and freely available to anyone who is interested enough to use them to write up the work, edit it, eliminate the middle man, and put it out there...even undercutting publishing houses and making all the profits.

So why is self publishing still so frowned upon? Why is it if you say you self published your book suddenly it "doesn't count" or it's "not a real book" (especially if it's in a fully digital format). Is it just eons of a paradigm refusing to shift or is there really something inherently "unreal" about it if you do it yourself? Can you be entirely self published and hold your head up?

I've looked into this and find this stigma really fascinating, the way it's approached. It's awesome that with LuLu you can print out a book and show it to people and go "Look! I got my book published!" and everyone's impressed and dropping your name and they're all proud of you and envious that you made it...until you explain it was through LuLu, you just had a copy printed on demand and suddenly it's like the bottom drops out...the pride and awe seems to be replaced with a smirk, as if you cheated.

Is it really that required to be taken seriously to have a middle man intercept your work and decide for you whether or not it's worth publication? Is it a requirement that you have to go through a slew of rejections before you get cut a break only to have some show that you're dedicated and persistent enough, therefore you're finally allowed to play in the real author's hangout?

Where is this coming from?

How do you guys perceive self publishing as it regards your "success" as a published author?

Or is this all just some residual fear from an old way of doing things that is colliding with the world of digital products that anyone can embrace?

Understand one sad fact about human nature, the average person does not want the person next to them to succeed. Jealousy is an ugly emotion and it rears its head whenever someone can accopmplish something the average person cannot.

Simply put, the person telling you that you don't count is trying to belittle you because that can't do it. Because we post here all the time and everyone here can write (of course some are better than others, some are more successful than others) but fact is we all write, and we start to take it for granted.

The average person can barely write a letter, we can write short stories and for some of us full length novels. We are creative, we are gifted with a skill the average person does not have.

So when you tell these people that you published, then they make fun of you that you did it yourself they are trying to demean you, because to their petty minds your success demeans them. There are now no excuses for them not to have chased a dream or done something special.

Of course there is the even more petty very special assholes who are authors who may have an in with a publisher and try to diminish you. Why? See my initial description of asshole. These are the people who feel slighted because they think they are more special and its an attitude of "jeez they'll let anyone do this these days."

Fact is the publishers are getting a percentage of their sales. You self publish and get lucky your money is your own. Self publishing is the way, the question is why not do it yourself?

Formatting? Know how to use word? You got it, if not their are people who will do it for you, for $25. Editing? okay a sticking point, but their are volunteer editors here who can do a good enough job to get you something that is solid enough to be considered a decent read.

Cover design? $4 stock photo's a site that provides free text to photos and of course a good eye for your cover.

Marketing? That starts here by building a fan base. Start a blog (free), advertise on your lit page, and get a web site they are cheap and easy to design. hook your readers here with an initial chapter then announce if you want to read the rest, buy it and here is where to do so.

Publishers in the e-market are slightly overrated, you're giving up a share of your money for things that you can do yourself if you're not afraid to learn. And all the threats recently that Amazon may resort to getting rid of self publishing and you will need a publisher? Those stories are started by publishers and people who have them.

End of the day pick a name, get a website, register yourself as an LLC and become a damn publisher.

So to answer your question. Part One Jealousy of those who cannot do, and Part Two the arrogance of people who perceive their way is the only way and you are less than them if you don't do it their way. And don't be fooled, many "publishers" are simply authors who started their own company and recruited some authors.

So in closing when they demean you simply shrug, tell them it must suck to be such an ass, and publish your shit and kick their asses.

 

[sr71plt]

Self-publishing is frowned on because no one but the author has assessed the books as good enough to put time, effort, and money behind (let alone buy and read) and the author of a manuscript isn't going to be accepted as being objective about its worth. Of course this doesn't mean they necessarily are all bad books, but you asked why it's frowned up. And no reasoning by self-publishers is going to change that "frowned upon" any time soon. Self-publishers help propogate this frown by turning out a lot of undercooked books. They've searched for the easy button rather than the skills training.

The freeing up of the publishing process has, indeed, moved the decision point of "what is good" to the reader/buyer, not just the agent/publisher. But the irony is that when a good self-published book surfaces, the initial comment is likely to be "this is good enough that it shouldn't have to have been self-published." That frown again. It's not going to go away any time soon.

Putting long-winded, self-publisher-perspective arguments out there is likely to change the frown either. It's not your face that doing the frowning.

 

[lovecraft68]

Self-publishing is frowned on because no one but the author has assessed the books as good enough to put time, effort, and money behind (let alone buy and read) and the author of a manuscript isn't going to be accepted as being objective about its worth. Of course this doesn't mean they necessarily are all bad books, but you asked why it's frowned up. And no reasoning by self-publishers is going to change that "frowned upon" any time soon. Self-publishers help propogate this frown by turning out a lot of undercooked books. They've searched for the easy button rather than the skills training.

The freeing up of the publishing process has, indeed, moved the decision point of "what is good" to the reader/buyer, not just the agent/publisher. But the irony is that when a good self-published book surfaces, the initial comment is likely to be "this is good enough that it shouldn't have to have been self-published." That frown again. It's not going to go away any time soon.

Putting long-winded, self-publisher-perspective arguments out there is likely to change the frown either. It's not your face that doing the frowning.

The author determines if they think their book is worth publishing. I would think most think it is so they do it.

The market then decides if it was worth it. I am damn certain your published ass is getting it handed to you by self published e-books out there on the market. That does not mean theirs are necessarily better, but for some reason they got some good reviews, enough sales to keep them up near the top and the word spread.

I highly doubt that when someone browses e-books they stop and say "oh, they don't have a publisher, so even though its a great cover and enticing description I am going to move on" It does not work that way for the average person. You think it does because you have been in the industry for years, you're conditioned to think that way.

What the e-market has done is diminish the power of the publisher, it has evened the field to the point that a stay at home mom like Selena Kitt can come out of nowhere and absolutely dominate the "published" market. She of course formed her own company, but where did she come from?

I do see where people like yourselves would be upset. Go to school, work your ass off, do it all the "right" way then get dusted by an amateur "hack" but oh well.

You can make cracks about "no accounting for taste" and try to look down upon the self publishers, but end of the day their book has good a shot as yours does. Excessia is one of your publishers and by your own admission you don't take a dime from them. Well that's some savvy business sense there for you. You're "buying" them off to keep your name associated with them.

So you can hold to your outdated ideals all you want, the market favors the independent, not the lemming.

 

[sr71plt]

You, of course, have nothing but bile and spite to back up your swiftboating innuendo, Lovecraft. But that's never held back your rants before.

I think I gave an evenhanded response to the question answered. And it has nothing to do with how or what of mine is put into print or e-books. You're just taking the occasion (again) to be a nasty turd.

 

[sr71plt]

For the record, I've supported here writers getting on the e-book wave any way they can, including self-publishing. I have an essay posted to Lit. that promotes that and helps people find where to start--even self-publishing:

http://www.literotica.com/s/some-whys-and-hows-of-e-publishing

I've often noted why I use publishers rather than self-publishing--so that I can concentrate on the writing and let others do all of the publishing work. If I couldn't find publishers, I'd probably self-publish, because, as my essay says, the rise of Internet book stores has helped democratize book marketing, especially for a new generation of readers raised to rely on computers.

What it hasn't done is taken away all of the hard work and expertise needed to produce and market and keep accounting track of a book that is easier with a publisher than by self-publishing.

So Lovecraft can take his sick innuendo and shove it where the sun don't shine.

The question here was why self-publishing is frowned on. I answered that question. Now I suppose that Lovecraft is going to kill another thread with his stupid hate campaign on the forum against me.

 

[PennLady]

LC, have you looked at e-books, really? You've told me you won't buy a Kindle, and although you've bought a few e-books to support fellow authors, I don't know what you know about e-books.

I've gotten quite a few e-books for my Kindle, the large majority cheap and free, and many romantic/erotic. You know what? Many of them are not that good, and that adds to the idea that self-publishing is done by hacks. As my grad program director put it, any idiot can get a book publish. These days any idiot can do it one better and publish themselves.

I would imagine some of the attitude is just things are slow to change -- that if a book was worthwhile, a publisher would put it out.

 

[_Lynn_]

LC, have you looked at e-books, really? You've told me you won't buy a Kindle, and although you've bought a few e-books to support fellow authors, I don't know what you know about e-books.

I've gotten quite a few e-books for my Kindle, the large majority cheap and free, and many romantic/erotic. You know what? Many of them are not that good, and that adds to the idea that self-publishing is done by hacks. As my grad program director put it, any idiot can get a book publish. These days any idiot can do it one better and publish themselves.

I would imagine some of the attitude is just things are slow to change -- that if a book was worthwhile, a publisher would put it out.

I agree, PL. I've downloaded a dozen or so stories to my Kindle so far. No, that isn't a lot, but I've only had it a few weeks. Yet I haven't finished a single one of the stories. As you said, they are not that good. All were self-published and all needed a good edit.

 

[3113]

Self-publishing is frowned on because no one but the author has assessed the books as good enough to put time, effort, and money behind (let alone buy and read) and the author of a manuscript isn't going to be accepted as being objective about its worth.

You can make cracks about "no accounting for taste" and try to look down upon the self publishers, but end of the day their book has good a shot as yours does.

Sorry, Lovecraft, but I'm with sr7 on this one. The question was asked "Why the frowns," and he gave absolutely reasonable, truthful, and correct answer to it. Self-publishing is frowned on and will continue to be frowned on because it is perceived as being something that lacks objectivity.

This doesn't make your comment any less true. Yes, self-publishers now have as good a shot (well, almost--self-advertising lacks behind what companies can do) as those published by a third party of selling their works. And if they do sell well, then that often wipes off the frowns; success, after all, wins in the end. But that doesn't mean that anyone who says, "I self-published"--and isn't wildly successful--is going to get respect rather than frowns for it. You can't hand yourself an award you created for "Best Erotic Story of 2012"--in a contest you made up where you were the only contestant, and assume that it's going to get you the same admiration as you would from entering a contest with judges and other contestants.

Self-publishing carries the sigma of awarding yourself a prize rather than earning it in a fair contest. Right or wrong, it's that simple.

Now, whether this has to bother you or concern you, whether you should care about it, is all up to you. But that is the way it is. Of course, clever authors can create their own publishing companies--easier than ever--which obscures the fact that they are self-publishing. But if they're really wise, they'll also have all the elements of "real" publishing behind it--professional editors, good cover artists, etc. This gives them more credit than they would have because they didn't take the easy way out. They didn't just write it and publish it, they did give it to others to critique and point out what they were doing right or wrong. They did pay their dues to some extent--like Selena Kitt's e-publishing company.

Either way, sr7's point is spot on. The finished work must look like it was put through all the steps that a published book ought to go through in order to garner respect--well edited, etc. Otherwise, it makes author and publisher, self or otherwise, look bad.

 

[NikkiBastion]

I definitely agree in that respect - as mentioned, I wouldn't want to put out something lame or poorly written. It was less about the structure and writing ability and more about the stigma itself, though I guess if it's coming from the fact self publishers can and do easily spit out crap, there's a point to be made.

Personally, I'd want the critique from the readers. My ego and sense of self is intact enough that I don't get all butthurt if I write a threesome and a bunch of people hate it because they think threesomes are immoral or deviant. If I write a threesome and there's some problem with realism or it's too choppy or some such style/structure, then that feedback is something I'd listen to.

I tend to see this as apples and oranges - on the one side, there is the story, a really great story being told, and on the other, there is the technical/mechanics of how it is being expressed and whether or not the ability to read and believe the story is being marred by mechanical failure. It makes it more difficult when people have such different writing styles to have an editor/publisher reject something because they have a standard idea of what's good to them and then conclude whether or not it's saleable...especially if they don't even bother reading the whole thing. That's where I have always had an issue with pursuing "getting" published over just "being" published.

Maybe the real question is whether or not those people should matter. Why can't the question be answered by the buyers and readers exclusively?

There is one other thing I see in the comments above - the ebooks for Kindle users and self published authors and crappy stuff. This isn't an issue of self publishing, it's an issue with the writer's ability itself. I mean self publishing as an alternative route to publication by someone else. I have and love my Kindle and have bought all sorts of books - digital books, from recognized authors and people I've never heard of. I've read some that were through a publishing co. and the stories just weren't that good, the writing was borderline, and the realism was minimal, characters were underdeveloped - and some publisher somewhere let that go through. I've read little 99c shorts that were little more than a chapter or just a fantasy written out that turned out to be nicely done.

Jaid Black's One Dark Night, while a decent read, was so utterly moronic I couldn't finish it when she wrote one of the characters telling another one that we only use 10% of our brain and perhaps the other character was using a lot more of it than most people - which is utter nonsense. That was such a needle across the record moment I put it down, and that's not a self publishing job (or it's well concealed). How did a publisher let that slide? It wasn't the character that didn't know better, it was the author having no clue that's a myth.

It cuts both ways, so, if you self publish (and your work doesn't suck and it's edited well), does it count? Is the stigma simply the fact it's presumed to be crap simply because it's self published and the only way to really trust a body of work is worthy of your time is if it's attached to a publishing company?

Or does it really matter in the end?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I long ago learned that books get picked out of the slushpile as much by happenstance as anything else, and being published doesn't guarantee that a novel will be read-worthy.

"cloud" critique is the answer to the gateway assessment problem.
I take a look at the reader's reviews-- no matter whether the book is published by doubleday, or self. Because readers are not writers-- mostly-- their biases come through in their reviews, and people tend to write from their gut. There have been times when I could tell that I would like the book after a bad review...

 

[PennLady]

I long ago learned that books get picked out of the slushpile as much by happenstance as anything else, and being published doesn't guarantee that a novel will be read-worthy.

"cloud" critique is the answer to the gateway assessment problem.
I take a look at the reader's reviews-- no matter whether the book is published by doubleday, or self. Because readers are not writers-- mostly-- their biases come through in their reviews, and people tend to write from their gut. There have been times when I could tell that I would like the book after a bad review...

Stella, on the first point, absolutely true and I probably meant to say that earlier. I think this is exceedingly true in romance -- it is frustrating to read stories with mistakes, and I mean factual errors, that were not fixed. I read a hockey romance by Rachel Gibson, which had various errors including a "three-minute penalty." NO NO NO NO NO! That was a print book. I just finished an e-book (perhaps an e-version of a book, not sure) where a Russian guy had the wrong last name. (Should have been Petrov; it was Petrova, which is the feminized version of Petrov.)

Readers' reviews are important, and perhaps more now. I find that this has put me at odds with my publisher. I know I talked about it before, but she rejected a book, saying it wouldn't sell, and suggested changing/deleting the parts that readers have told me they love. it's a bit boggling.

 

[sr71plt]

I long ago learned that books get picked out of the slushpile as much by happenstance as anything else, and being published doesn't guarantee that a novel will be read-worthy.

Yes, and I made that point in the Lit. essay I reference above.

 

[3113]

Readers are the best you can get?

If I write a threesome and there's some problem with realism or it's too choppy or some such style/structure, then that feedback is something I'd listen to.

But it's not something a lot of writers would listen to if it didn't come from an editor with the promise that the work wouldn't be published UNLESS they fixed. it. This, again, is why self-publishing carries a stigma, because the writer doesn't have to listen anyone when they say, "The Emperor has no clothes." If they go through a publisher, the thought--and hope--is that someone will make/require them to shape up and make the story the best it can be.

This is, of course, not always true of publishing, but self-publishing allows writers to ignore even the most correct and important criticism to fixing and making better a story. And that adds to the stigma.

It makes it more difficult when people have such different writing styles to have an editor/publisher reject something because they have a standard idea of what's good to them and then conclude whether or not it's saleable...especially if they don't even bother reading the whole thing. That's where I have always had an issue with pursuing "getting" published over just "being" published. ?

But you're ignoring the fact that publishers/editors read a LOT. A whole lot more than most readers out there. And a much wider variety as well. This is why they can look at page one and know if it will grab a reader or be ignored, why they can read half-way and know if the story is a winner or a loser, or read the entire thing and know what it lacks or needs to be the best story it can be. These people are, presumably, the experts. Readers who love books and reading so much that they've gone into a business where they do nothing else all day long, week after week, year after year. You get a comment from a random reader...how do you know if they're right or just talking out their ass? How do you know if they have the editor's eye to tell you what's missing or wrong or not working--and what would be right and work? Editors and publishers have "street cred." They've done the work from slush piles to best sellers to earn the right to say, "Yes/No" on your work.

Speaking personally, I've gotten plenty of comments from readers, and much as I love and appreciate them, I wouldn't take their advice when it comes to writing--and I don't think I ever have, unless they were fellow writers. I've also gotten comments on my works from professional editors...and in most cases, their comments made me sit up and take notice. They made me go, "Oh, I see. Yes, you're right!" And I can say that my stories were the better for taking their professional advice.

So, once again, the stigma remains for self-publishing because you, the author, can't say that anyone with a professional eye has gone over your work and made it the best work it can be. Saying that you've accepted reader criticisms is like saying you took criticism from your friends. How valuable is that? How professional? I'm sorry, but your arguments aren't making me think that self-publishing, without any real, paid editors behind it, is equal to being published by a reputable third party--or that it shouldn't be stigmatized.

 

[sr71plt]

There is one other thing I see in the comments above - the ebooks for Kindle users and self published authors and crappy stuff. This isn't an issue of self publishing, it's an issue with the writer's ability itself.

No, unfortunately that's not true with what gets self-publishing that frown. The unfortunate truth is that most self-publishers bypass many of the functions of producing a good-quality book--most glaringly in editing. Most self-publishers are publishing without anyone else (or anyone with editing skills) looking at the manuscript at all. (You can say it isn't so, but it obviously continues to be so). A book that has gone through the hands of most publishers (not all--some will take the same short cuts) will have had people other than the author working on it--and will help it be a better book--using a whole range of publishing function skills that most authors just don't have.

You just can't get away from that frown originating from the perception that there is more (much more) "crap" in self-publishing than in published books. Pretty much the only readers/buyers who disagree with this are the self-publishers--and they do so out of self-interest.

That said, readers/buyers--especially in niche genres--now tolerate less-than-standard technicals to get at the books they want to read that otherwise wouldn't be made available by a controling publishing industry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You've just brought up an important issue, Penn Lady. Hetero romance really doesn't interest me much. And if I want to read a cheap novel for fun, that features people like myself-- I pretty much have to go to the self-published writers, or a few small e-publishers.

You can find dozens of examples of published genre writers, who have had their books sent back by their editors and publishing houses because a main or secondary character was gay, or lesbian, and there were scenes that showed them actively being so. Writers have been given the choice of turning the character straight, or deleting them, as recently as November last year. in many cases those writers have opted to self-publish that particular book...

And that's my interest. There are people who want to read about black characters, and probably people who want to read white supremacist romances, and these are not of interest to the big publishers.

And Pilot points out;

That said, readers/buyers--especially in niche genres--now tolerate less-than-standard technicals to get at the books they want to read that otherwise wouldn't be made available by a controling publishing industry.

Totally.

You get a comment from a random reader...how do you know if they're right or just talking out their ass?

You don't get A comment from A random reader, you get ten comments from ten readers. And in the genres, the commentors aren't as random as all that.

 

[3113]

You don't get A comment from A random reader, you get ten comments from ten readers. And in the genres, the commentors aren't as random as all that.

Quite right. I get ten contradictory comments from ten not-so-random readers and not one of those comments--if they were critiques--would I trust over yours, Stella

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quite right. I get ten contradictory comments from ten not-so-random readers and not one of those comments--if they were critiques--would I trust over yours, Stella

Whoah-- thank you!

But thats kind of an illustration of what i said there-- that the commenters aren't always that random. You know that I am passionate and somewhat educated about certain genres, and (hopefully) I'm able to get my feelings and knowledge across if I review something. Likewise there are people -- usernames anyway-- that I've come across with enough regularity to get a handle on their tastes and trustworthyness. See?

 

[R_Percival_Shackleford]

well we have gotten so used to the idea of art as a collaborative process that doing everything yourself is percieved as self-indulgent, and unfortunately that is usually right.

going through a typical publishing process puts your work through the eyes and opinions of other, generally professional people who have experience in what works and what doesnt. if your story is unedited and poorly structured, they can fix that. if it is bad enough, it wont get accepted.

self-publishing doesnt have those barriers. anyone can publish anything, and it results in the gloriously accurate ability of the internet age to composite evidence amongst the work of thousands of individuals across the world to tell us that 90% of humanity and its creations are crap. that 10% that self-publishes is usually great, and something you couldnt get from the "normal" process, but people are invariably going to latch onto the majority result.

of course, IMO 90% of books published normally are crap as well, but with self-publishing it is easier to see... as in, people must exert less effort to trash self-publishers, so that is what they do.

 

[NikkiBastion]

You've just brought up an important issue, Penn Lady. Hetero romance really doesn't interest me much. And if I want to read a cheap novel for fun, that features people like myself-- I pretty much have to go to the self-published writers, or a few small e-publishers.

You can find dozens of examples of published genre writers, who have had their books sent back by their editors and publishing houses because a main or secondary character was gay, or lesbian, and there were scenes that showed them actively being so. Writers have been given the choice of turning the character straight, or deleting them, as recently as November last year. in many cases those writers have opted to self-publish that particular book...

And that's my interest. There are people who want to read about black characters, and probably people who want to read white supremacist romances, and these are not of interest to the big publishers.

That's what I'm getting at...that's the area I'm referring to. As sr7 pointed out about the technical aspects that aren't necessarily handled by self publishing, I understand that and it's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the issue of publishers/editors as Stella is pointing out - when their personal opinions decide what would sell or not - NOT whether it's written worth a damn. To have an editor edit my work and point out the typos, the run on sentences, the problem with a description, an oversight, the formatting, the implausibility of a character even - I have no issue there. I'd seek that out before self publishing regardless so it's not crappy or lame. Or if there just was a word count limit I went way over or failed to meet. I get it. I also get it that submitting a lovely incest story to Harlequin Romance aint gonna fly anymore than submitting Billy And His Pet Frog aint gonna fly on literotica (well, you know!)

But where I have always resisted seeking traditional publishing would be in exactly the kind of thing Stella points out - they decide whether the story itself is saleable basing it on their personal opinions or comfort zone. That is where I would balk - who are they to make that decision for anyone else. If nobody bought it, it may not be because the premise sucked or the story was disturbing - it could be low grade promotion or not getting it out there properly. But to read a part of it, a proposal, or all of it and reject on the basis of "nobody wants to read the black guy/white girl romance" doesn't fly with me. How the hell would they know?

As for readers reviewing - what are they reviewing? Story? Then it's opinion and I'd take it for what it's worth. Are they pointing out the sloppy editing job or the crappy structure? I'd listen and fix that. If a reader read it and then reviewed it saying "well, this book sucks because nobody thinks XYZ is hot" - whatever, clearly they'd not be the audience I was shooting for.

Publishers and editors don't always get it right.
Neither do self publishers.

But since we also know that publishers and editors don't always get it wrong, and self publishers don't always put out crap, then there has to be some other basis for this idea that "it's not a real book" and "it doesn't count" when it's self published.

Maybe the question should be more remedial: what, exactly, constitutes a book? Pages? Word count? Other?

 

[sr71plt]

when their personal opinions decide what would sell or not - NOT whether it's written worth a damn.

But where I have always resisted seeking traditional publishing would be in exactly the kind of thing Stella points out - they decide whether the story itself is saleable basing it on their personal opinions or comfort zone.

Sorry, this isn't the major determinant in what publishers choose to publish. They choose to publish what fills the current catalog hole in their offering to a known target (buying) audience. They may form their target audience based on personal preferences (which is their perogative--it's their money) but once they have a buying base established, that's what they have to publish to to stay alive.

It's not an individual publisher's fault for publishing to a target genre audience. Again, it's their money. They don't owe you as an author squat.

The limited-interest genres haven't been represented before now with publishers (or only to a limited extent) because the buying audience couldn't be scraped together well enough to make publishing there profitable.

Again, that's not the publisher's fault.

The great thing about both the self-publishing print on demand and the e-book revolutions--as well as Internet technology--is that the limited niche audiences can now be reached.

They can't be reached with mainstream print publishing, though, unless/until their readership builds. Because of access driven by the Internet and publishing technology, the readership for many of these niches has expanded. But working against this is that the computer age is limiting the relevance (and dominance) of print.

When you bewail what mainstream publishers won't give you (and why should they "give" you anything?), you are revealing that you really do care and want mainstream publishing for your work. Otherwise you would be happy with how the Internet and new publishing technology have opened to provide you your natural publishing niche in e-publishing.

It's really not so much about the attitude of mainstream publishers--or even of those who are looking down on self-publishing (which is driven by mainstream publishing and is slowly eroding)--it's the wish of those who could have their natural niche if they didn't want something else wanting that something else.

I wouldn't want my erotica to go mainstream print. The buying audience would shrivel right up. I get to write without any wordage restrictions (neither novellas nor supernovels are cost effective in print), I get to write to fetish audiences, I make more money per unit sales than with mainstream publisher print, my readers can afford to buy more of my work, and my readers can read in private. If I published the erotica I do in hardback, there would be very, very few people comfortable with putting it on their bookshelves. So they wouldn't buy it. And so they wouldn't be reading what I write.

Maybe stop griping and celebrate the opportunities open to you? And stop looking over your shoulder and complaining about what other sectors of the industry think and are doing?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ummm...Okay, Pilot. We'll celebrate from now on.

 

[sr71plt]

Ummm...Okay, Pilot. We'll celebrate from now on.

It beats whining--especially when there isn't a damn thing you can do about what you're whining about.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

I've gotten quite a few e-books for my Kindle, the large majority cheap and free, and many romantic/erotic. You know what? Many of them are not that good, and that adds to the idea that self-publishing is done by hacks. As my grad program director put it, any idiot can get a book publish. These days any idiot can do it one better and publish themselves.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the market is handing them their asses, as LC so nicely put it.

At $0.99 a pop, you can write "Sausage" on turds, and people will buy them just to see what they taste like.

 

[sr71plt]

How many 99-cent e-books have you bought, Carlus? Just curious.

I don't think people buy just any e-book just because it's offered for 99 cents.