crowdfunding | Self-Publishing Poll

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?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

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).

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".

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.

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?

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?

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.

All true. Which is why I say later on: "And we all know that skills and money don't necessarily make a successful book anyway." Established publishing doesn't always pick winners, that's a known fact.

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.

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.

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.

Edited 2010-02-21 16:02 (UTC)

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.

Vanity press is a subset of self-publishing, although many people do not know that. It's a very predatory business model.

*ponder* Thinking about this further, I note that few people seem interested in drawing distinctions among different types of self-publishing, even when those differences create wildly different outcomes.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

>>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.

That is the core of the matter I'm wondering about. Most of the vitriol toward self-published writers comes from other writers. Why? What does it matter to Orson Scott Card or Stephen King if John Doe Writer self-published his book?

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.

/houseboatonstyx here/

I haven't seen publishers commenting on this, but what you say fits the comments I've seen from many writers, most of them wannabees (well, of course most writers ARE wannabees).

One lady, who teaches writing in some sort of community college sort of project in UK, was being coaxed by beta-readers to web her rejected novel. She refused, saying that if no professional wanted to publish it, it must be so bad as to be embarrassing. She had some structured sort of personal requirement of wanting at least some compliments from some agents or publishers before she would consider the book non-embarrassing. As though some sort of imprimature from some super race were required.

A US lady who had one or two books published (loved by a small audience) seemed to feel the same way about her work: it didn't sell well, so it must not be any good.

Others attacked the idea of self-publishing because 'they can call themselves authors'. Apparently this would destroy some standard (of approval by 'professionals') which the wannabees hope to reach someday.

/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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 2

Self-Publishing Poll

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Well...

Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

no subject

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Hmm...

no subject

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

Re: Hmm...

no subject