Self Publishing vrs Actual Publishing

[Raphael]

Thoughts on the topic?

[sapphire]

Everything I've heard from professionals in the publishing industry is the same: don't self-publish.
Individual people just don't have the resources that publishing companies have - it's harder to get the story into book form, harder to advertise, harder to understand all the legal issues with copyright, etc. Also, once you've self-published, unless you were massively successful, publishers won't touch you. It's basically black-listing yourself.

I think, if you truly have the resources to get your book and your name out there on your own, go for it. But don't expect to be able to fall back on a publishing company later.

[Raphael]

Cool. That's what I had understood of it.

[aly]

*revives nearly year-old thread* I'm very well versed in this! The self-publishing is evolving quickly to compete with the traditional publishing platform. Now, self-publishing can be as mass-produced as traditional publishing, so long as the author is interested in investing time and energy--even if they don't have the money. There are sites like CreateSpace that do all of the actually publishing, and offer resources for reasonable prices that individuals don't have, like editing, reviews, cover-creation, ect. I actually self-published a book of mine and was moderately successful. Through a program with Amazon, advertising was a breeze and I was able to sell 800 copies of my book in two months. If I continued it (though I got too busy to, being in college and working at the same time) I could have continued on that train. I later took it down because I couldn't put in the work to upkeep it. I don't recommend self-publishing if you don't have the time, energy, tenacity to advertise, or to ask for reviews. However, because of how ebooks are booming (130% increase each year as of 2013), self-publishing is in the race again. There are several self-published authors that have broken over 1 million copies sold, and I suspect, based on the trends, that the number will only grow. Traditional publishing companies aren't nearly as profitable as they used to be before ebooks.

I read a long time ago, when Christopher Paolini first hit the Best Sellers list, that he started Eragon as a self-published book, and was later picked up by larger publishers so he could go on tours. His sister was his editor, as well as his cover-creator, and they printed the books individually.

Honestly, with how skewed the query letter process is, I would say self-publishing is a considerable alternate route.

[sapphire]

You make some good points. That's about what I've understood about self-publishing: if you have the resources, awesome, go for it. If not, leave the business side to the professionals. Personally, I know I don't have the time/energy/knowledge to self-publish. I'd be shooting myself in the foot, so I haven't tried and don't plan to, except perhaps as a last resort.

I must say, that despite Paolini's success, he's actually an example of why I'm not particularly a fan of self-publishing. His work is fine, but I never found it to be all that great. I enjoyed the books, though I've only read the first three. I feel that, given a bit more time and a professional editor, Eragon could have been amazing - as it is, it was good. Personal opinion. And obviously the numbers speak for themselves - he has undoubtedly found success.
(And his story, as I've heard, is rare - most publishers are decidedly not interested in self-published authors, because it's harder for them to market future books that way.)

It is definitely true that it's a tough business to break into, though. Your query has to be really good to spark an agent's interest - OR you have to be lucky. Conventions are good places to meet people in the industry, who might have an in to help you get published. (I caught the interest of an agent with my first novel through a convention - long story short, he didn't end up offering to represent me, but he did read the full manuscript and wants to see more from me, so I call that a win.)

I think my main issue with self-publishing is that it leads people to publish before they're really ready. Had the resources been available to me, I could have self-published back in high school, or college - I certainly had completed manuscripts - but it would have been a terrible mistake, because, quite frankly, I was not that great a writer, no matter what my parents/teachers told me. For my age, sure, I was pretty good. But not in the bigger picture. Some people have the perspective to not publish until their writing is good enough, but so many just don't, and that skews the overall quality of published works down quite a bit. (Not an attack on you, of course - I haven't read anything you've written, obviously, but by the numbers it sounds like you've done quite well.)

Sorry, that got long. This is an issue I could go on and on about.

[aly]

You're absolutely right about some people publishing before they're ready. You can see quite a but if that on Kindle downloads. Some stories just aren't ready. My favoring of the self-publishing has to do with reading the stories of rejection letters, like how JK Rowling was rejected dozens of times. (Whoever rejected her must feel so stupid now.) Then there are stories that are professionally published that...I mean...50 Shades, anyone?

I've been extremely critical of traditional publishing companies for quite a few years--since The Help got really viral and I found out Sockett was rejected 64 times before she got published.

Overall, I think the system needs to be less of a subjective thing. One person reads one page before they even see the story and decides the book's fate? I'm not a fan of that type of weeding process.

*also, yes. I love having someone to talk to about this. I bore everyone else IRL >_>

[sapphire]

It's true, the publishing houses certainly aren't perfect, and a lot of success has more to do with luck than skill. I haven't bothered to read 50 Shades, but I've heard the horror stories. (I also read a book back in high school that was just horrendous. I could not believe it was on the shelf. Don't remember the title, though.)

It's tough to make the publishing process less subjective, though. I've been on both sides, on a smaller scale - I read submissions for Lightspeed and Nightmare Magazines, and I have submitted works to other magazines and one agent - and in the end, it really is up to the editor, whether they feel the work is right for their particular publishing house/magazine. I'm sure editors who turned down stories that went on to be massively successful are horrified with themselves, but it's hard on their end, too. Some stories are easy rejections - one page in, and you can certainly tell that it's not going to make it. Honestly, I think the stories that aren't instantly bad probably get more than a single page read. It's the stories that are good that are the hardest to make the call on, because who's to say that other people will like it as much? And if you reject it, what if it does go on to that huge success that every author (and editor) wants?

It would be great if we could find a way to make the process less subjective without reducing the art of writing, but I feel like it's not likely (maybe not possible). It's easy with concrete pursuits, like engineering or physics, where it either works or it doesn't. Art is much harder to judge.

(I hate debates in real life, honestly, but online I could do this forever. I've wanted to discuss this with someone for ages, but I am the least confrontational person you are ever likely to meet face to face.)

[aly]

(I'm so glad I get to talk to you about this. You're awesome :B)

I think you have the key there in what you just said: the risk that not everyone will like it. I know at least one person that has read 50 Shades and liked it; the vast majority seem to laugh at it though.

I think maybe treating books more like paintings might be a start. Not everyone likes Degas or Pollock, but they are still being sold.

I hold a belief that I don't think any story is necessarily bad; I think with lots of work anything can be life-changing and amazing. Maybe if more people were willing to work through the kinks there might be a better chance for people--less luck. 50 Shades could have been amazing...except the editor must have not read it. Maybe a team of editors would make life a bit easier for authors.

Also, more job openings. And that's awesome.

[sapphire]

Right, I think my point was a little confused there. What I meant with the whole editors' perspective thing is that they have to consider whether enough people will like it to be profitable (and also whether that publishing company has the resources to market it the right way). Some stories are great for a niche group, but most people really won't be that into them, in which case it's probably best to look for an Indie publisher who works in that niche - there are SO MANY of them out there. In the end, publishers have to make money to stay in business, and that's going to affect how they do things.
I think books are already like paintings in a certain sense, though not completely - not everyone likes Harry Potter, but J.K. Rowling has still has unprecedented success. Not everyone likes Twilight, but it's still very popular. Same with many other authors. And how many painters/other artists are out there, desperately trying to sell their work? (I went to art school - there are a LOT of them. Heh.)

Hmm, you're right - "bad" wasn't a good word choice there. Most stories are salvageable, with hard work. But there are stories that are simply not up to par in terms of writing craft - grammar, imagery, character development, etc. - that would take too much of an editor's time and not be profitable. I've read so many stories where the plot was good, but the writing was just not engaging, or where the writing was beautiful, but the plot was dull, and those stories don't get published.
Perhaps what we need is more really good independent editors - people who are paid to help work that rough initial piece into something that will catch an editor's eye at a publishing house. (Hey, if more people used freelance editors instead of their friends'/family members'/own opinions for editing, self-publishing might go up in overall quality.) But most people don't use freelance editors. I know a guy who was a freelance editor for a while, but he simply wasn't getting enough clients, so he had to stop and find a regular job, and not because he wasn't good at editing.