crowdfunding | Self-Publishing Poll

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

More good questions!

>> Why did we forget?<<

Well, some teachers and many reprint publishers don't bother to mention that a particular book was self-published. So then readers don't have that info when they read that book, and they might not stumble across it later. Publishers may not want to advertise the fact that self-publishing can work, so they hide the truth by not mentioning it, which is a disservice. On the other hoof, some reprint editions have an introduction that describes the book's history, and those usually do mention the self-publication beginning.

>>What changed?<<

The main thing is that books used to be made by people who liked reading, and are now made mostly by people who like money. Publishing used to be considered a labor of love; nobody expected to get rich doing it; and the publishing houses were trying to break even and hopefully turn a modest profit. But many publishers used to be what we'd call hobby businesses -- they were not actually self-supporting but were run by somebody who could afford to take a loss sometimes, or even all the time, for the sake of releasing books they thought were important. When the first qualification is "Will this make lots of money?" instead of "Does this book have useful nonfiction information or literary merit?" that changes what gets published, tremendously.

Another thing that changed was the size of the industry. Like many others, it got so big and entrenched that it shaded out most of the competition. Didn't use to be that way, and earlier on, people would go have their own book printed and it wasn't such a big deal. Now the publishers say that there is only One True Right And Only Way to have a writing career. They've dug a rut there.

It occurs to me that there's one thing we could do to stick a big, shiny pin in their "Self-publishing is BAD" mantra: make up a list of great self-published books, including classic literary canon books and some modern examples like "books sold directly to an author's fiction fanbase" (like the pamphlet additions to the Liaden Universe) and "nonfiction on obscure topics." Then make that available to anyone who wants to do a panel on it at conventions, or share it on a website, etc.

Make up a list of great self-published books, including classic literary canon books and some modern examples like "books sold directly to an author's fiction fanbase" (like the pamphlet additions to the Liaden Universe) and "nonfiction on obscure topics." Then make that available to anyone who wants to do a panel on it at conventions, or share it on a website, etc.

This is a fabulous idea!

Let's make this a separate post, then. Everyone can chip in their favorites.

The main thing is that books used to be made by people who liked reading, and are now made mostly by people who like money. Publishing used to be considered a labor of love; nobody expected to get rich doing it; and the publishing houses were trying to break even and hopefully turn a modest profit.

There are no giant profits being made in the publishing world. It is still run by people who love books, and who consistently lose money advocating them. It's very upsetting to see this kind of misinformation out there, as it maligns without knowledge--which is what we're trying to fight in crowdfunding. I know many people in traditional publishing personally, and it's offensive to say they're all in it for the money.

When discussing literary canon that was self published, it's important to remember that many instances have been warped to suit a purpose--for example, Baum didn't self publish a novel, he self published a chicken farming manual.

I just don't think it's all that awesome to go insulting people who devote their lives to publishing books while defending self-publishing.

>>I know many people in traditional publishing personally, and it's offensive to say they're all in it for the money.<<

That's why I said "mostly" and not "all." The publishing industry has changed over time, and one of the ways it has changed is increasing placement of profit over content. I have watched this happen. I have declined orders to help it happen. I have publisher friends too, but the kind of publishers are love are sadly not the dominant force in today's industry.

I'm just not sure where you think the giant profits are. Yes, it's a hard business and hard decisions get made. On the other hand, they continue to publish me and I'm not a great seller by any means, I write weird and un-commercial things, and occasionally run off on my own and slap books up on the internet. It's not all about profits, any more than a business that needs to keep running always is. (Which it always was. There was never a time when everything was pure love and no one cared about profits.)

This. I am quite certain that my small, university-related press did not say, "Hey, yes, we would like to publish your book of poems" entirely without self-interest, but neither did they do so in the expectation of moving craptons of copies and getting me on Oprah.

You do not need to be in a business to make giant profits in order to be in a business to make money. There are many, many business that are purely profit-driven, yet only make modest sums past expenses.

As a reader, I am frequently frustrated because many of my favorite authors are no longer in print. I can only find their books at a local used bookstore, if I get lucky. And that's because of how the traditional publishers work. And traditional publishers work that way because they want to maximize what profits they get.

Well, sometimes it's because the author has not chosen to seek out another printing. In fact, that is very often the case.

Are ou saying that self-publishers, crowdfunders, and self-publishing companies like Lulu are not in it to make at least some money? What's wrong with making money with art?

No few of them are dead, now, sadly. It's hard to expand my knowledge of the history of a genre when the original authors are no longer around to ask for reprints, and the books are not yet old enough to be considered classic works of art.

Of course publishing companies (of all types) would like to make money... and with print on demand, if there is no demand, there is no printing. But if there is demand, then printing can be done, even if it's a small or obscure market.

But in a traditional publishing set up, if a book does not sell at least a certain percentage of the first print run or two, then there's no reason for a traditional publishing house to keep publishing it. Even if there is a small group interested, it will not keep up with the cost of the unsold books that are pulped.

Self-Publishing Poll

Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...