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

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.