I follow a lot of writer’s forums
online (LinkedIn, Goodreads, etc.) and there’s been a lot of debate over
self-publishing vs. traditional publishing. Almost every day a newbie or
wannabe author/writer will ask about the pros and cons, and all the old
mythology immediately starts to surface. Those of us who have already
self-published (and some quite successfully, thank you) are quick to point out
the benefits, but there are always a few (often with hidden agendas) who
pooh-pooh self-publishing and offer up all the old stereotypes.
I am happy to report that those
stereotypes, with a few exceptions, are dead.
It used to be that the only
reputable way to get published was traditional; that means getting an agent,
having said agent send out your manuscript (all 40 pounds of it) to various
publishers on either coast, waiting, waiting, waiting, getting back
non-informational reject letters (“doesn’t fit our brand; best of luck”), and
repeat ad infinitum (or ad nauseum). If a writer wanted to do anything other
than this carved-in-stone formula, they would have to go to what was then
called a “vanity press.” Vanity press has somewhat gone the way of the dodo,
but it does still exist in slightly different forms. More on that later.
Essentially a vanity press would print anything you asked them to, if you were
willing to pay their price. This was very often in the thousands of dollars and
came with much ego-stroking and promises of fame and fortune. The reality was
often heart-breakingly disappointing.
The main problem with a vanity press
was that they had their money up front. Once they did, there was no incentive
for them to do anything to promote your book. You paid them to print it and
they did; then you ended up with an empty bank account and countless boxes of
books in your garage that you were left to sell or promote however you could
figure that out. They had your money; you had your tarnished, dust-gathering
dream.
Anyone who knew anything about
publishing knew that if you weren’t published traditionally, by a recognized
house, you were probably a hack, so any book with a vanity press brand was
immediately pigeon-holed as crap. Some have even said such authors became
pariahs, which may be true. It was as if once you had succumbed to the lure of
the sham, you were branded a fool and no worthwhile publisher would even glance
your way. You were dead in the water.
That was in the old days.
Over the last 20 years, publishing
has undergone a huge transformation. For some reason (unknown to me) the
industry began to pull back into a very fearful and conservative replica of
itself. Instead of working to discover and develop the next up-and-coming
brilliant author, publishing houses fixated on only proven authors and instant
best-sellers. Instead of taking a chance on undiscovered genius, houses banked
on household names and sure blockbusters. Uncovering and developing rough
talent (of which there is never a shortage) lost out to almost assured
(remember Sarah Palin’s book?) million-sellers. A never before published author
had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere with the big houses.
Luckily, the cavalry was appearing on
a distant ridge.
The large publishers’ reluctance to
take a chance on new authors left a huge void in the writing world, but it
wasn’t long before forward-thinking entrepreneurs were popping up to fill that
gap. Small presses began appearing all across the country and the world. They
didn’t need to have a New York address or populate a 5-story building in
Manhattan. Many were small mom-and-pop businesses, started on a shoestring and
willing to consider unknowns. At the same time, the internet was ushering in
author’s showcase sites where writers could put up a sample of their writing
and publishers, editors and agents could peruse at their leisure. It was a
match made in heaven.
Then everything changed – again.
Digital printing, print-on-demand
(POD) and the immediate transfer of data over the internet spawned the new and
now wildly successful industry of self-publishing. Now for the first time,
writers could publish their own works easily, affordably, and produce a quality
product which paid for itself as readers ordered books. There was no huge cash
outlay, there was no huge inventory to warehouse, no huge gamble to take. The
old, slow, expensive process of printing, warehousing and shipping large
quantities of heavy tomes was replaced by a sleek, cheap and efficient process
that brought almost instant results.
The shackles had been thrown off.
So if self-publishing is so great,
why does the debate rage on?
From my point of view, people who
argue against self-publishing either have their own agendas or they are
laboring under old stone-chiseled misconceptions. Here are a few of the
arguments you’ll hear:
Self-published
books are badly written and are rife with spelling errors, typos and bad
grammar. Partly true. People are different and of course some writers may
not have the best command of the language and/or believe they don’t need an
editor or proofreader. Most, however, have a good understanding of their own
limitations and are not shy about calling on outside help to polish their book.
We writers are artists; we are creators and when we create a story, we want it
to be the best it can be. This argument is most often promoted by (you guessed
it) people who work as editors.
People
who self-publish are just lazy and impatient and are not willing to do the work
or to wait for a traditional publisher to accept them. There are some
calcified brains who honestly think that self-publishing is just too easy and
that “fact,” in and of itself, is a good argument against it. What they’re not
considering is that some authors may have been working on their book for many
years and may have spent many more years shopping it to every agent and
publishing house they could find, only to be passed over again and again. Most
writers are not cranking out a book every three months, slapping a cover on it
and pronouncing it done. All the writers I know take their time, write their
best and polish, polish, polish until they feel they have an interesting,
satisfying story.
Self-published
authors become “unpublishable” and are pariahs in the industry. False. By
now everyone knows the story of the Celestine
Prophecy, how it was self-published but became a huge seller and was
picked up by a traditional publishing house. It’s not the only one, just the
most famous. Self-publishing does not preclude
being traditionally published. As for being branded a pariah, let me ask a
question. Last time you bought a book, did you look at who published it? If you
did, were you aware if the company was a self-publishing company or not? And if
you were, did it influence your decision to buy or not buy that book? I’m
guessing the answer to those questions is most likely no. We don’t buy a book
according to who published it. We buy books because we want to read the story. We
don’t buy an author because of who published their book; we buy them because we
like their style and story-telling.
People
who self-publish produce inferior books. False. Self-published books these
days are quality products with crisp printing and beautiful and eye-catching
covers. I would challenge anyone to pick up a self-published book and a
traditionally published book and compare them. I doubt they’d find any
differences. In one of the online forums, there was actually a guy arguing for offset printing (which just happened to
be his business), saying it was still cheaper per unit price—but of course that’s
only if you order a run of 5,000 books or so. Not only did this guy have his
own agenda but he was advising writers to continue using an outdated and
antiquated form of publishing that is expensive, bulky and unnecessary.
What’s really too bad about all this
bull is that most of these shrill voices (1) have little or no real experience
with the self-publishing process itself and (2) they promote themselves as
experts, condescending to advise the lowly unpublished authors about the “truth”
of self-publishing. They bank on their criticism and know-it-all manner to lead
the newbie by the nose away from self-publishing and (ironically) toward
whatever outdated method their business is based on. I find these tactics
reprehensible.
Luckily, so do hundreds and
thousands of my fellow self-publishers. Take a look at some of these online
forums and you’ll see these sharks surface now and again, starting off with a
very “helpful” post that includes some of the bashing above. Then watch the
fun. My fellow self-publishers don’t suffer these sharks gladly. They zero in,
tagging the false comments, rebutting with facts, ripping apart the advice to
harken back to the old ways (“Ignore that man behind that curtain!”). It
usually doesn’t take too many zinging comments before the shark turns tail to
go look for more placid waters to hunt in.
Writers have discovered that they
have the power.
And they like it.
Next time: The Evolution of Vanity
Press
I think you are my new publishing "idol"!
ReplyDelete