Self-Publishing Poll

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

ysabetwordsmith pointed out this poll on self-publishing, which I visited briefly. After reading a handful of the comments, I was struck by their violence: there's a lot of emotion there in the people denouncing the practice of self-publishing. ysabetwordsmith said about that: "Any instance of extreme hostility raises the question of why people are being so violent about it."

I think that's a good question. Why do you think some of the people opposed to self-publishing are so hostile about it?


Edit: Please note, I'm not really interested in debating the profitability of the publishing industry. What I'm trying to understand, primarily, is why there's so much vitriol leveled by writers and readers at self-published authors (as in one of the commenters who said of self-published authors that they can "call themselves authors" but they never will be real ones). This kind of extreme behavior strikes me a strange. Particular coming from writers to other writers. And readers—that makes no sense at all. If they don't want to read self-published work, they can just... not read it. Why the anger?

Comments

[catvalente.livejournal.com]

Do you really think this community is full of middle men?

[jolantru.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, the connection with self-publishing to amateur and horrible fiction?

And the continuing stigma of self-publishing as bad quality fiction versus traditional publishing (respected, right path etc).

[jenny_evergreen]

This is definitely part of it, but it doesn't quite explain the level of hostility of some people to me. I think there's a sense of "cheating" coming into play. Self-publishing, to these people, seems like taking a short cut around a lot of difficulties people assume they HAVE to go through, not least because they were TOLD that at some point.
It's the same sort of hostility reserved for those born to money, for example.
I was just talking with my spouse about how the technological revolution is changing things, including the rise of crowdfunding as a truly viable income option. As always, people are going to resist these changes, and I think one group will be this group, that feels like bypassing "traditional" publishing is "cheating".

[enveri.livejournal.com]

I'm not a published writer, so my knowledge/opinion is likely a lot less informed than the rest of you, but I think this is a large part of it.

For years, authors have been told that self publishing has been the way to go if you can't 'cut it' in the 'real' publishing business. I mean it's been called (and may still be) Vanity Press; in two words, it relegates the author's work to an affectation rather than literature.

Jenny (below this comment) may have the right of it too. I have no doubt there are many motivations that go into this.

[celestinenox]

It seems to be the general consensus that self-publishing means one or two gems amongst a million badly written and unedited books. Some of them might have had promise if given to a real editor, but most of them should never have been published at all. Authors are not the best people to edit their own work.

Also, there's the question of making money on self-published books when the author is the sole source of marketing for their book. If the author already has a large following, then it's not a problem. If the author is a first-timer, it's going to be difficult for them to market their book effectively. Not to mention, if they want their book in print, they have to pay for that, but this is really addressed in my third paragraph.

Lastly, for the "publishers" out there that offer printing, editing and marketing services for a price (basically having the author pay them to publish their book, rather than the other way around), there is always the risk that the author will be paying scammers to do nothing that will help them. And even if it is a legitimate business that will really help as they claim, there is still the necessity of earning enough from sales of the book to at least make back the money spent on publishing it... which is to say nothing of actually making a profit.

So, basically, self-publishing is seen as a possibly legitimate option for authors with already established audiences who could maybe afford the price of self-publishing and have a ready-made audience and source of marketing... but a bad idea for a new author just starting out with neither the skills nor the money to assure a successful book. And we all know that skills and money don't necessarily make a successful book anyway.

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

It seems to be the general consensus that self-publishing means one or two gems amongst a million badly written and unedited books.

Of course, the fact that seems to escape these people is that "real" publishing means one or two gems amongst a million badly written and unedited (or underedited) books TOO. Because even established authors can write turkeys (especially if they achieve high-income author status and start getting shirty about being edited), and even "real" editors can pick out howling turkeys, or just horrendously mediocre work.

[just-the-ash.livejournal.com]

Lack of reading Walt Whitman? Or, you know, just a general lack of understanding of how much of literary history involves works that were self-published, at least in their first publication?

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I think you bring up an intriguing point. Why have we lost this understanding of historical examples? What changed? Why did we forget? What excuses do we give for things being different now?

[themaskmaker.livejournal.com]

I think jenny_evergreen hits the nail on the head.

It's "cheating."

Instead of going through the confusion, humble pleas to established authors for contacts, search for agents, the Dreaded Slush Pile, multiple rejections, etc., that we believe traditional publishing involves (I am not saying trad publishing necessarily DOES involve these things, just that we've all been indoctrinated into believing it does), the self-published person just... puts his or her work out there and asks for money for it.

Mind you, it's not so easy for the self-published person as that, either. But that's the story, and that's cheating.

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

ozarque has astutely observed that "Most fights are about who's in charge."

If a writer humbly submits their manuscript to other people, they're putting those people in charge. The author is always begging for favors -- read this, accept this, buy this, stamp me as Worthy -- unless they become so wildly popular that the scales tip. This power dynamic is what encourages so many publishers to treat writers badly: they know that most of those writers will take it, because they have accepted the system.

A writer who walks away from that table and self-publishes is telling them, "You're not in charge. *I* am in charge, and this book will sink or swim on my hard work and its own efforts. And after I have paid for its manufacture, I will be pocketing the profits myself. Thank you and good-bye." Well, nobody likes to be told that they're not important, they're not needed, their opinions are irrelevant, and they are not welcome. A writer who self-publishes is sort of firing the publishing industry and saying he or she can do better going it alone. That's a glove in the face.

Most of the time, self-publishing doesn't yield very good results, because almost all of it is done by people who don't know what they're doing. The publishers could actually relax about that; it helps their cause by producing spectactularly awful books. But to maintain their bottleneck, they must attack the alternatives, and especially anything that might actually be successful. It's one reason they change their tune when a self-published book becomes wildly successful; they run to the author and say, "Oh, we'll let you be in our club now," and almost all self-published authors will take that bait. Then it's like, that was an accident, that book should never have been self-published because it was really good enough to be a real book all along.

[zellie-bean.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm surprised at the hostility. Especially since many other artists--illustrators, sculptors, etc--build their careers from selling art themselves. I don't even know if there is much of an agent/publisher equivalent, all the art I've gotten has been either originals or self-made prints from the artist.

[ideealisme.livejournal.com]

I'm cautiously optimistic about self-publishing via e-books providing it's done properly. I would never self publish anything more suited to conventional methods - I've seen a friend of mine jeopardise her chances of getting her novel published properly by sending it off to a POD company which did not edit her material and produced it poorly. You have to have your eyes wide open in this business and there are an awful lot of scammers. But I think if you put a bit of thought behind it, you can benefit from self-publishing in various cases where market demand calls for it.

I think there are also cultural differences between the US and Europe on how this might be implemented. US tradition values philanthropy and seeking out funds whereas over here it's more about having state assistance via paying taxes.

None of that explains the vehemence of the objections over on that thread, tho. I guess there are a lot of crooks in the business and like me, they might have seen others burned by their experiences in POD. I can understand that.

[(Anonymous)]

/houseboatonstyx here/

Some POD publishers do worse than damage your reputation. Some of them have contracts that tie up your copyright -- and even the copyright of your future books!

A legitimate self-publishing service will never do that.

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>Hostile responses to the ides of self-publishing, especially when the idea that self-publishing is bad is hammered into the heads of aspiring writers, doesn't surprise me in the least. <<

Whenever people are invited to take potshots at a designated target -- "Only bad writers self-publish, so it's okay to condemn them all" -- many people will take that invitation and run with it.

This is very different from pointing out flaws with a situation and discussing (or attempting to discuss) why it is that way and what might be done about it.

[ideealisme.livejournal.com]

I think that's a great post.

Personally, I'm emotionally invested in whatever makes money :)

[mmegaera.livejournal.com]

Writing is the only artistic endeavor that I know of where you have to have sold something to be validated.

I've never sold a quilt, but I don't hesitate to call myself a quilter.

I've been saying this for quite some time now. Not that I can change anything by saying it.

[pensandquills.livejournal.com]

I want to comment so as to address several of the issues brought up in this post and the comments made by others.

Self-published doesn't always denote bad writing. I read plenty of major publisher produced bad fiction as well. I think that this is largely a matter of opinion on the part of those who make the decisions. What is good to someone isn't to someone else. It is all subjective.

Keep in mind that there are also plenty of vanity presses out there posing as legitimate ones. For those among us getting started in the industry and who are naive, it is easy to fall into their traps. (I know I did.)

Editing is the hardest part of the writing process for me personally. I would rather not edit my own work simply because I know I'll miss something. But I've heard from many published authors who tell me that even in the mainstream channels, authors are expected to provide their own editorial services now days. *shrugs*

The internet is definitely revolutionizing the industry. We have access to more resources than ever before and if you ask me the traditional industry side of it all simply isn't keeping up.

Let's not forget that anything truly original will never get published. This is mainly due to it being a business and about making money more so than about art, expression, and social commentary through story-telling. If it doesn't fit into a nice neat little genre shell or cookie cutter, they don't want to take a chance on it.

The whole thing is a catch 22 for newcomers. I'd much rather retain control over my work and do it on my own after seeing how the industry works now days. This is not to say that I'll pass on a major book deal, but still.

[tonithegreat.livejournal.com]

Deleted my reply to you, because I meant it as a reply to the original post.

[tonithegreat.livejournal.com]

I think some of the vitriol is born of a strange misplaced fear. Some would-be writers might be afraid of a world where there are so many unmapped options. It sounds like it is hard enough to break into the old model of the writing industry, but with this new model on the horizon, now writers can't really say they've tried everything to get published or gain an audience unless they've exhaustively marketed themselves through the old system _and_ given self-marketing a try. And that is perhaps daunting enough to cause fear and vitriol.

It is stranger that would-be readers would have vitriol against something they can just ignore. But maybe some of them, particularly those who respond to polls and things on the internet, are thinking in terms of wishing they were writers and so the same fear is triggered for them.

[themaskmaker.livejournal.com]

These are good points.

Perhaps it's a bit like the current health care culture. These days, there are so many medical options, and the individual is expected to research all of them, not just rely on zir doctor to tell zim what to do.

When you're sick and weak and frightened, the notion that you have to research your condition, and even then you might miss something, is daunting. If it's your kid, it's even worse. If they don't get better, it becomes your fault.

And our art/writing feels like our offspring, in so many ways.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Why the anger?

Fear. Uncertainty. Human nature makes us want to create us-and-thems, even when they don't exist. (See how I did it, even there?)

Another thing to note is that a looooot of those people lump vanity press with self-publishing, and that doesn't so much lower the average quality of that pool as plummet it out of view.

Most self-publishing (especially when you include vanity press) makes it easy to target the group as a whole as worthless drivel and unpolished trite - the last question in the poll was "what editing quality do you expect from a self-published novel?" and honestly, if it were a case of being handed 100 self-published novels at random from a box, the answer is going to be zilch. By basic odds, NONE of them saw an editor, because self-publishing doesn't require or so much as suggest one in most cases, and there are billions of self-published books. Millions of them are really awful. Perhaps, the question should be: "what level of editing do you demand of the self-published books you would buy?" Because that's a lot different.

Self-publishing can be done right, and with class. Mostly, it isn't.

The whole publishing industry is undergoing a massive change, and the economy itself is in serious trouble. This scares people, and when they're scared, they often react with anger and defensiveness. If it weren't self-publishing they were reacting with anger towards, it would be someone else. Self-publishing is a fairly safe target because it won't lose them any potential jobs, and they have a pre-existing (and frankly justified) poor opinion of them as a group.

Those are my thoughts as I think them...

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

That poll on self-publishing is on my blog.

Personally, self-publishing is not a route I would choose to take, but I have no strong feelings about it either way.

I specifically asked people to give their answers and input from a reader's POV. Many folks did just that, but I agree there were a lot of negative responses. Since my journal is aimed at writer's, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that many writers found it hard to seperate their writer self from their reader self.

Having said that, if I read your post here without following the link to the poll, I'd assume that most of the 150+ comments there were spiteful rants about the self-publishing industry and the people who take that route. That's simply not the case, and I don't think it's fair of you to portray it that way.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

You will note I made no comment about all of the commenters on your post. I said specifically: After reading a handful of the comments, I was struck by their violence.

I meant that exactly. I was speaking about the handful of comments I read, and made no comment about the entirety of the response on your poll.