Self-publishing or commercial publishing-Compare and Contrast

[banjo]

I'm considering sending out some queries, and invest a little time into the process. However I intend to print and distribe some gallies when I finish my first novel. That shouldn't take more than a month. I'm not quite ready to publish yet; I still have plenty of revision and rewriting to do. But I have a prequel to write as well, (it's already begun).



I’m not happy about the prospect of a very long wait for approval from an agent or publisher. I know other writers, good ones, who feel as I do. We believe that digital printing and self-publication have become very viable alternatives to commercial publishing for highly entrepreneurial writers. We find the long delayed responses to queries and the times between acceptance and publication difficult to accept. If the turnaround was not so slow, with commercial publishing, many of us would find it more attractive.

But until the turnaround time shortens considerably, going out on our own could save at least a couple of years from book completion to a published book on the streets. Personally, I don't find the "Stigma of Self-Publishing" sufficiently adverse to discourage me from moving out on my own if it will greatly economize time.


After all, The Bridges of Madison County, Term Limits, The One minute Manager, The Celestine Prophecy, and others were self-published first. Warner bought the world rights for the Celestine Prophecy for $800,000 in 1992, quite a bit of money at the time, but it became a bargain for Warner. It remained on the Publisher's Weekly Hardcover Fiction List for 64 weeks, 26 of those weeks as #1. And James Redfield was previously an unknown author.



I'd Love to hear your thoughts on this issue.

[Tish Davidson]

During the long delay between acceptance and publication following processes take place: editing, revision, more editing, more revision, copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, galleys to author, corrections, cover art development, blurb writing, fact checking (nonfiction), legal read through, publishers catalog copy written, ISBN number obtained, placement of book on Amazon, B&N and similar websites, publicity campaign development, briefing salesmen about book, salesmen generating enthusiasm for book with bookstore buyers, printing, order fulfillment and distribution.

My area of expertise is writing, not the other activities that surround the publication of a book. They aren't things I want to do, but not everyone feels that way. I would not self-publish unless it was something non-commercial written strictly for friends or family, but I'm not you. My experiences with traditional publishers have been good. My books are better for having gone through the process outlined above. It doesn't bother me that there is a time lag between acceptance and publication, because I have moved on to the next book. I want to write, not spend my time doing publicity. But again, I'm not you. You are the one who has to be satisfied with the end result. No one else matters.

My advice is to thorougly explore self-publishing. Look at a lot of self-published books and decide if you are satisfied with the production values. Read several different forums about self-publishing. Go to a couple of local readings by self-published authors and ask them about their experiences. Then explore the world of traditional publishing. Read several forums, look at some sample contracts on the Web. Go to some local readings or writers conferences and talk to traditionally published authors about their experiences, and then make your decision. In the end, you'll have to figure out whether self-publishing will produce a product you are proud and whether the level of risk is acceptable to you, because self-publishing puts all the financial risk (and reward) on the author.

[gp101]

A high school basketball athlete may feel he's ready for the pros. Thousands do. Most will elect to go to college, learn the finer points of the game; some of these will actually make it to the pros after college. A vast majority will learn they are very good in college--but not ready for the pros.

Back to the high school seniors that think they are ready for the pros: quite a few will forego college and enter the pro draft (thinking they are ready and not willing to wait out the college experience), but only a dozen or so of those thousands actually land a roster spot with a pro team. Even those that do will spend most of the season on the bench. Only one that I can think of (Lebron James of Cleveland) actually made an impact on the team and is considered a star.

What's this got to do with the beginning writer? You may think you're ready for the big time. Many of us do. Some will forego the ritual of finding an agent or (traditional) publisher and shoot for POD. Some will have minimal success. Most will have no success. Maybe one or two a year break out from the pack and grab the attention of a traditional publisher. Do you think those odds are better than the odds of going the traditional route (ie find an agent or publisher first)? And if your book is good enough to stand out in a crowd of POD publications, then it should be good enough to get published the traditional way.

If you think you're the one POD in 10,000 that gets recognized by the real publishing world, go for it. Most likely however, you'll be missing out on very constructive criticism and assitance that we all need to get published.

Sounds to me like you're just impatient or fear what professionals may say about your book. If it's good enough to get published, you can find a home for it besides POD. Remember, most POD companies will print anything. Do you really want to be a part of that if you're looking to make a writing career?

Maybe the mods could add a sticky regarding this subject as it seems every month more people ask this same question.

[Old Hack]

If it's that "long delay" that puts you off commercial publishing, and steers you towards POD, think again. The time is not spent doing nothing: as already pointed out by others, it's very necessary so that the book can be meticulously edited, designed, and considered, and a marketing plan formulated and put into place. When I was an editor I often felt as though we didn't have enough time scheduled in for these processes. And if you are your own editor then you're going to have to do all this for yourself, which (if you want to do it properly) will eat up all your writing time.

By all means take the POD/self-publish route if you feel you must. But don't think you'll get any advantages by doing so. Compared with going the more traditional route it will cost you more, in time, effort and money; it will get your book far less publicity, public awareness and sales; and it will mark you out as a writer whose work wasn't good enough to be taken on by the big boys.

If you really don't think your work will ever be taken up by a major publisher (and the only reason it won't is that it's not good enough), and yet you hanker to see it in print, then go ahead with self-publishing. I prefer to put myself through the seemingly endless agonies of the submissions process (albeit shielded from the worst of it by my piranha of an agent). I know I'll get taken up sooner or later. Meanwhile I devote my time to writing--and to nagging people online!

[brinkett]

I’m not happy about the prospect of a very long wait for approval from an agent or publisher.
banjo, if you want to self-publish and do it right, you'll have at least a four month wait anyway, and that's if you rush. If all you want to do is print your book through lulu or a POD publisher, you can have it next week, but nobody will read it.

If you're serious about self-publishing, you might want to join yahoo's self-publishing group. Lurk there for at least a month or two and read through the archived messages.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Self-Publishing/


We believe that digital printing and self-publication have become very viable alternatives to commercial publishing for highly entrepreneurial writers.

For nonfiction, yes, depending on your platform. Will it ever be true for fiction? Maybe. But not yet.

[MarkPettus]

If you don't already have a platform to market your book (your own talk show?), then you better be ready to pound the pavement selling. In another thread, I recommended a writer who was having problems do the following:

"Sell books out of the trunk of your car. Go to every book festival, library opening, sf con, whatever... that you can find. Flea markets, festivals, county fairs, make sure everyone within 500 miles gets a chance to buy an autographed copy. Drive your numbers up through sheer force of will. Wear out the keys on your fax machine by sending out press releases. Call every radio station on the dial and ask to be interviewed. You'll feel like you're shopping for an agent again, and the rejections will come fast and furious, but this is how the rest of the world sells things, and it will work for books as well."

I know several writers who do this, and manage to make a living. Not a good living, and those aren't new cars they're selling out of, but they eat. If that is a life you're comfortable with, self-publishing might be for you. If you have as much faith in the marketability of your writing as your purport, sell it to an agent or a publisher, multiply your income by a factor of 10, and get busy writing the next bestseller instead of booking the next festival.

[Lauri B]

I think the biggest problem for self-published authors is getting your books in bricks and mortar stores. Distribution is difficult, and most stores--independents and chains--won't accept books from self-published authors unless they have an established distributor in place. The four books you mention are four out of hundreds of thousands of self-published titles. All the above are terrific successes and inspirational stories, but you might as well buy a lottery ticket if you think the odds of turning a self-published book into a best seller that is picked up by a major publisher are in your favor.

[maestrowork]

Everyone has given you the pros and cons already. If you're serious about self-publication (and not vanity, please!) then my advice is: read and learn everything about it. It takes time and effort to do it right. Good luck.

[Jamesaritchie]

The Bridges of Madison County, Term Limits, The One minute Manager, The Celestine Prophecy, and others were self-published first. Warner bought the world rights for the Celestine Prophecy for $800,000 in 1992, quite a bit of money at the time, but it became a bargain for Warner. It remained on the Publisher's Weekly Hardcover Fiction List for 64 weeks, 26 of those weeks as #1. And James Redfield was previously an unknown author.








The Celestine Prophecy was self-published and hit it big. I can't find any evidence at all The Bridges was ever self-published. If it was, it certainly never sold enough copies for anyone to find. There isn't a copy of it anywhere. I suspect it's one of those myths, like all the self-publishing sites that claim John Grisham self-published his first book. If Waller ever did self-publish, it's certain he had truly rotten sales, and the book wasn't picked up because it sold well.

"The One Minute Manager" is nonfiction, and you can't lump it with novels. Self-publishing can be good for niche nonfiction, but it's nearly always horrible for novels.

Self-publishing because you don't like the waiting time for traditional publishing is probably the worst possible reason to self-publish.

The simple truth is this: whether you like it or not, there is stigma to self-publishing novels, and it's well deserved. For every well-written self-published novel out there, there are a thousand horribly written ones.

The odds are roughly 250,000 to one that if you self-publish a novel, two years later you'll still be waiting for it to turn even a small profit. With traditional publishing, the odds are about one in five that your novel will turn a profit, and you'll be asked for another novel. The turnaround time is much faster with a second novel. Even a traditionally published novel that sells horribly still outsells 99% of all self-published novels. And is better written than 99% of all self-published novels.

If you want to be successful with a self-published novel, you can't just expect to put it up on a website, or self-publish POD, and expect readers to come to you. You have to have LOTS of copies on hand, and you have to spend tons of times each and every week selling out of the trunk of your car, travelling to various shows and signings, etc. You get no distribution, no help of any kind, etc.

Success stories do happen with self-published novels, but there almost as rare as hitting the lottery. And for good reason.

Two years is NOT a long wait, this length of time is NOT ever going to shorten because there is a queue system that is both necessary and helpful to writers. Thousands of novels are published each and every year, and there's only so much room in bookstores, only so much time at the printers, etc. And the time BEFORE publication is time you can prepare the public for the book.

Patience is not only a virtue, it's essential. I suppose it's natural for a writer to want quick responses and fast publishing, but it's also not realistic, not good for the writer, and shows a real lack of understanding of the business side of writing. The only thing fast usually means is fast loss of money, fast loss of time, and fast loss of any chance of being successful.

There may be plenty of good writers who feel as you do, but if so, they're hiding well. They certainly aren't self-publishing novels. You can read self-published novels for months without finding one that doesn't read like it was written by an illiterate third grader. Or without finding one with an author who doesn't think it's wonderful.

The ONLY advantage to self-publishing a novel is that you can fail a whole lot faster.

And should you work a miracle and manage to write the one in 250,000 self-published novels that sells well, and should you have it picked up by a traditional publisher, yeah, right, you'll still have to wait your turn in line to have it published. You're taking the long, slow road, not the fast one.

[maestrowork]

Two years is NOT a long wait, this length of time is NOT ever going to shorten because there is a queue system that is both necessary and helpful to writers. Thousands of novels are published each and every year, and there's only so much room in bookstores, only so much time at the printers, etc. And the time BEFORE publication is time you can prepare the public for the book.


I used to think that 18 months is a long time and that the publishing business moves like snails. But after going through the process myself, I now understand why, and I'm actually impressed by the quality control that goes into it. And yes, because there's a queue (my book's not the only one getting published). First there's the editing process -- and chances are your editor is working on multiple projects at the same time. Then comes design and layout. Then proofing. And my publisher requires at least a 5-month pre-release period to allow for reviews, etc. Then the marketing, distribution, publicity, etc. It all takes time.

I am not the most patient person in the world, but now I'd rather do it right than rush through the process because I know how mistakes would be made if you don't have enough time and pay attention. There are things out of your control (printer screwing up, someone getting sick, reviewers such as Kirkus asking for at least 3 months...) and you simply have to wait.

I have used this pre-release down time to tell people about my book, starting to create a buzz, and doing other things to promote it. Obviously, I am also working on my WIP. So I am actually glad to have this "down time." Imagine if I self-publish? I would be driving around the country with a trunkful of books trying to sell every copy to people I don't know. I wouldn't have any time to write.

[Aconite]

Personally, I don't find the "Stigma of Self-Publishing" sufficiently adverse to discourage me from moving out on my own if it will greatly economize time.
The stigma isn't what you think of self-publishing; it's what potential buyers think of self-published books. The overwhelming majority of self-published books are crap. Even self-publishing advocates say so. Your book will be assumed to be one of the overwhelming majority of crappy self-published books unless and until you manage to convince people otherwise, and you'll have to convince them one by one. Starting from such a handicapped position, it's hard to get anywhere.

[victoriastrauss]

And my publisher requires at least a 5-month pre-release period to allow for reviews, etc. Then the marketing, distribution, publicity, etc. It all takes time.This is worth re-emphasizing. At least some of that long wait between acceptance and publication is there to allow the publisher to perform a variety of essential pre-release marketing and publicity tasks, including getting the book reviewed in industry journals (most of these journals, which booksellers and librarians use to help them make decisions about what to purchase, require review copies at least three months in advance of publication) and selling the book into stores (which happens months and months before the publication date--my publisher, for instance, had a catalog listing and a cover sales proof ready for my forthcoming book this past July, and the book won't be published till March 2006).

It's been mentioned that self-publishing can work well for certain nonfiction projects, and that's certainly true--someone who has written a book for a niche audience he knows how to reach directly, or someone who can exploit a "back of the room" situation to sell books directly to her audience or customers. People who have connections that can help them publicize the book also may do well with self-publishing--for instance, a journalist who can call on his media contacts to review and write about his book. If you scratch a self-publishing success story, you'll nearly always find a special circumstance of this sort. But for most general fiction and nonfiction, self-publishing is not very effective, because most authors simply don't have the ability to tap into the distribution network that can reliably get books in front of a general audience.

There have been some amazing self-publishing success stories. But the hopes they inspire are unrealistic. As a proportion of all self-published authors, the successes are a tiny, tiny fraction--far tinier than the fraction of successes among all commercially published authors. Your odds of succeeding through self-publishing are much, much poorer than with commercial publication--and those odds are slim enough.

(It always strikes me as ironic when people who are considering self-publishing as a way of bypassing whatever they don't like about the commercial publishing industry justify their decision by citing self-published authors who did so well they were picked up by...the commercial publishing industry.)

If you do ultimately make up your mind to self-publish, learn as much as possible about it before plunging in (i.e., don't just pick a POD self-publishing company). One good resource is Dan Poynter's Parapublishing (http://www.parapublishing.com/getpage.cfm?file=/homepage.html&user=#user#).

And if you decide to self-publish, it should be for a better reason than impatience.

- Victoria

[Aconite]

Another thing to remember is that by self-publishing, you automatically rule out reviews in important review sources, like Kirkus, which don't review self-published books. (If you don't understand how big an issue that is, you have got to do a lot more research into publishing before you're ready to self-publish.)

[brinkett]

Another thing to remember is that by self-publishing, you automatically rule out reviews in important review sources, like Kirkus, which don't review self-published books. (If you don't understand how big an issue that is, you have got to do a lot more research into publishing before you're ready to self-publish.)
It depends. If you don't own the ISBN or went through another company (which usually results in stock covers, crap interior design, and most likely the work wasn't edited), it's true. If you've published under your own imprint, you can get the reviews if you go about it correctly. Unfortunately, people often use the term "self-publishing" when it's not really, so it's important to make the distinction.

As has been mentioned, research and planning is key. Self-publishing because you're impatient is the wrong reason to self-publish because if you do it right, it can take just as long as publishing through a commercial publisher. You might want to rush something out if it's nonfiction on a timely subject with a lot of interest, but then I'm willing to bet that you can probably interest a commercial publisher in that case, if your book is good.

[Aconite]

It depends. (snip) If you've published under your own imprint, you can get the reviews if you go about it correctly.
There's no correct way to submit your self-published book to Kirkus for review, for example, because they won't review them. From http://www.kirkusreviews.com:

Kirkus Reviews does not review books in the categories listed below.
self-published titles
print-on-demand titles
e-books

There's more they don't review, but those seemed the most relevant.

(Yes, Kirkus Discoveries does review such books. They charge for it, and nobody in the book business regards a Kirkus Discoveries review as worth the paper it's printed on.)

[brinkett]

There's no correct way to submit your self-published book to Kirkus for review, for example, because they won't review them. From http://www.kirkusreviews.com (http://www.kirkusreviews.com/):

Hang out with the experts for a while in the Yahoo group I posted earlier and then see what you think. :)

[banjo]

Thank you all, for the many outstanding points you've made. And thank you for your thoughtful consideration and useful suggestion. I've heard you clearly. And I appreciate your frank and direct delivery.

The questions I've raised here are sincere. And you have already given me extensive guidance toward my continued research efforts. This is only my second day here and I am astonished at the depth of this resource. One stop shopping as it were.

Last night I spent several hours touring the many corners of the board, including the section on self-publishing. Their discussion was very helpful also.

I believe that I have a good book here, one that would eventually get serious mainstream attention. Maybe I'll try the commercial route after all. But before I decide, I have to do more research about that approach. For instance how much say does the author have if the publisher(editor) wants to change his work. The ability to tell my story is not negotiable.

Again, thank you all, so much, your thoughts are appreciated.

[Aconite]

For instance how much say does the author have if the publisher(editor) wants to change his work. The ability to tell my story is not negotiable.
banjo, that depends a lot on your editor. The kinds of changes editors usually suggest are those that involve making the story work better--rewording awkward passages, cutting or reworking passages that block the flow of the story, and so on. (I've never had an editor make changes without my permission, even when they suggested ones I chose not to accept.) A good editor works with you and helps you get across to your readers what you'd intended to in the first place. There are horror stories about bad editors, yes, but those kinds of things happen rarely (that's why they get attention). The editor doesn't want to write your story. The editor wants to help you make your story the best it can be.

[Jaws]

Most "self-publishing success stories" are, as Victoria noted, completely out of context. Redfield is a poor example because his work isn't actually what we'd call "fiction;" The Bridges of Madison County only became financially successful after an incredible string of coincidences led to interest in Hollywood; and so on.

Think about it this way: People do win the lottery. That does not make it an efficient use of funds, or a way to pay the rent. If you get enjoyment from the process of playing the lottery, and the expense isn't taking food off the table, that's your business. And, frankly, the odds of "winning" are a lot better for the various state lotteries than they are in self-publishing!

I am aware of no work of fiction truly self-published since 01 January 1978 (the effective date of the current copyright act) that was a substantial sales success before being picked up by a commercial publisher without truly exceptional (and irreproducible!) circumstances. And it's not for lack of trying—this is part of a long-term data model being prepared for legal academia. There have been several "false self-publishing" efforts (e.g., Christopher Paolini) that have proven successful prior to being picked up commercially, but none have been "lottery hits" without that commercial pickup.

[maestrowork]

It depends on the editor and publisher. It's still your story, but a good developmental editor may suggest ways to improve the story -- tightening the pace, add more character development, rearranging scenes, clarifying plot, etc. etc. Usually you work with the editor to resolve these issues. I don't think the editor would say, "If I were you, I'd write it this way, and these are the changes you have to make or else..." I think the problem usually is the other way around... that the author says something like, "I am not changing ONE word. It's final. It's perfect as it is." That's when the publisher and author part ways and the contract dissolves...

I think it's a legit concern for many writers, especially first-time novelists. I certainly had the same concern. The reality is, if the editor believes in your story enough to acquire it, she wouldn't want to make drastic changes, or if any major changes need to take place, it would probably be discussed before a contract is signed -- so there will be no major surprises. If you can't agree to the changes, then there will be no deal... Once the book is bought and editing continues, most changes are probably nips and tucks to make the book better.

[maestrowork]

MThere have been several "false self-publishing" efforts (e.g., Christopher Paolini) that have proven successful prior to being picked up commercially, but none have been "lottery hits" without that commercial pickup.

But I think that was Banjo's point... that he wants to eventually get picked up by a big traditional publisher. He just wants to bypass the whole query, submission, agent... then the two-year wait to see the book in print. He wants to get the book out now, then have it catch the eyes of a publisher or a movie studio...

So, it could happen. But the odds are against you.

[victoriastrauss]

Here's another consideration. No writer is totally objective about his or her own work. Nor are there many manuscripts, no matter how good, that can't be improved. One mark of a professional writer is being open-minded enough to accept thoughtful criticism. If you're not willing to consider the advice of an experienced professional who thinks highly enough of your work to want to publish it, you might indeed be better off with self-publishing.

Usually, editing suggestions will fall into one of three categories. There'll be things that you'll recognize as right the minute you hear them (for instance, for my last book, my editor suggested a structural change that was so obviously right that I couldn't believe I hadn't thought of it--but I hadn't). There'll be changes you probably wouldn't have made on your own but don't mind making to please the editor. And there will be changes you feel are wrong. Sometimes, with discussion, you can reach a compromise. Or you can just say no. Again in my last book, my editor didn't like the final chapter and wanted me to cut it. I felt strongly that the chapter was important and needed to stay. I told my editor why; I don't know if I convinced her, but she accepted my decision. As a compromise, I shortened the chapter and turned it into an epilogue.

The editing process should be collaborative. You're well-advised to heed your editor, but changes shouldn't be forced on you.

- Victoria

[Cathy C]

by Jaws: I am aware of no work of fiction truly self-published since 01 January 1978


I know of exactly ONE: Karen E. Quinones Miller's GOING FOR IT. She sold almost 30,000 copies from her own website, and her second book sold at auction to Warner (along with a third) for just under 100K. But one book in all that time, with all of the self-pubs who have tried only PROVE the rule. There are always exceptions. But the rule stands 99.99999% of the time.

[maestrowork]

Or Richard Paul Evans. The story I heard: he sold more than 100,000 copies out of the trunk of his car (and local bookstores) for 2 years... mostly at churches and through friends and local outlets... and words got out... then eventually got picked up for $6 million and published by Simon & Shuster in 1995.

But we hear about these stories, just like we hear about people winning the $256 million Powerball jackpot. It doesn't really mean anything. There are plenty of people making $millions every day doing things the "right" or "hard" way. We just don't hear about their stories because it's common. The stories we hear, like Evans', are told exactly because they are rare.

[aruna]

What about that lady who selfpublished a book about making your own shoes, and it sold so well over the years it became a bestseller taken up by some big publisher? John fro PA told that story Shelagh's site but I odn't remember the names..

[Cathy C]

by Aruna: a book about making your own shoes


Non-fiction titles can do quite well. The question is how fiction self-pub titles do. The odd lightning strike has indeed happened, but it has to be a stellar book to begin with. Usually, it's a matter that the book is exceptional but doesn't fit an existing genre or blends too MANY genres for a publisher to know what to do with it.

[Jaycinth]

I spent 20+ years working in the printing industry. Every year people came to us with manuscripts that they wanted to 'self publish'. Every year most of them walked away amazed, but with their wallets and self respect intact.

May I suggest the following before you become a victim: Reputable printers will give you a FREE price quote. Ask first. "Will you give me a FREE price quote on a project of mine?" Narrow the field by finding someone with a big Komori or Heidelberg that will run 22" x 35" sheets. For quality concerns you'd prefer a web press. If the printer says they plan to put your manuscript on a copy machine, RUN. After 100 copies the manuscript falls apart. Long before that it gets spots and wrinkles and it is just nasty.

Now for the quote: How many pages is your novel? Since you aren't here to answer, lets say you have a 300 page manuscript (including title pages, table of contents, etc, etc.) and it is wordprocessed in Courier or Times New Roman 12 point with 1" margins, in black ink on regular 20 lb white stock. (in other words, 'camera ready'. If your manuscript is not 'camera ready' you will need to add in the costs of MAKING it camera ready.)

Call your printer(s) and ask them for a price quote on printing 1,000, 2,500, 5,000 and 10,000 copies of your book. Tell them you have 300 pages that will run 2-sided for 150- 2 sided sheets. Tell them the pages need to run 9"x6" (I just measured a nice fiction hardcover I have on my desk, you could ask for 8"x 10" or 5"x8" whatever floats your boat.) black ink, on a low acid or acid free 60lb bright stock. ( I have ALWAYS liked Williamsburg but that is me). Tell them you want it bound. (Unless this is a cookbook DO NOT ask for GBC or spiral.) Get prices for both 'Perfect Binding' ( softcover) and Hard cover. Let them know if you have artwork and get prices for both color and B&W.

Ok. Once you have your quotes, (and your printers should give you a time frame, if not pooh on them!) ask yourself. "How many of these books do I need to sell to make my money back?" Then ask yourself , "Who can I sell these books to?" If you are planning on selling them on your website, add the cost of maintaining your website for a year to your printing costs.

Take a walk around to your local bookstores ( or any store in your community that sells books.) Ask them if they will buy your book and put it on their shelves. If they say no, ask them if you can sell your books on consignment through their store.

Once you have all of the answers to these financial questions written down in front of you, then evaluate your decision to self publish.

Oh, and there are smart people here, smarter than I, read other threads regarding self publishing.

[Aconite]

and it is wordprocessed in Courier or Times New Roman 12 point with 1" margins, in black ink on regular 20 lb white stock. (in other words, 'camera ready'.
Jaycinth, have I misunderstood you? Are you saying Courier or TNR 12 point would be the typeface used for the book (and shrunk to fit MS page to book page)? Bleh! Bleh! Bleh!

[Jaycinth]

Jaycinth, have I misunderstood you? Are you saying Courier or TNR 12 point would be the typeface used for the book (and shrunk to fit MS page to book page)? Bleh! Bleh! Bleh!

Well, of course, it depends on the size of the book. If it is going to be 5" x 8" then the manuscript should be reformatted so that it is centered on the page so that there is a (2", 2.5" margin on each side..approx. I don't have a ruler on my desk) If it is going to be, what did I suggest, 9" x 6"? a 1" to 1.25" margin with a 92% reduction should be fine. It could be word processed in Chiller, Garamond or Casalon ( spelling!!!) open face, if that is the preference. My point is that after(most of) these poor souls wandered into the shop and got their price quote, the decision to self publish went away. Poof!!!
And don't get me wrong. D******** printing's main business was primarily high quality color offset work. Big runs. We did it well, and we enjoyed it! Most of us felt bad for the folks who decided they had to self publish despite the cost.
It was my thought that if this nice person were to look at the basic economics of it, without becoming prey to PU** or DE****, that a more relaxed view would be taken toward the 'waiting' game.
Now, dear Aconite, I am humbled and apologise for anything that I may have said to offend. I haven't had to quote offset work for well over a year! ( Of course, thinking about it, typesetting, printing AND selling a book printed in Chiller would be. . .different.)

[Aconite]

Now, dear Aconite, I am humbled and apologise for anything that I may have said to offend.
Offend? No, not at all, dear gentle. I just thought about trying to read a book in TNR or Courier, shrunk to fit, and felt something very like a hairball rising.

[HConn]

Almost all of the writers I've heard weigh in on the subject are happy to be edited. An editor's input makes their work better.

Hemingway had an editor. It turned out well for him.

[maestrowork]

A great book to check out: "Bookmaking" by Marshal Lee.

[Jaws]

Just a couple of quick points:

(1) Karen Quinones Miller is not a good example; for one thing, she was in the publishing industry (admittedly it was newspaper publishing, which isn't quite the same), and second I would not treat her work primarily as a work of fiction. There are some other factors, too; but those are the obvious ones.

(2) For anyone who cares and just wants a ballpark estimate, I maintain a printing cost estimator (http://www.authorslawyer.com/l-print0.shtml#estimator) on my website that is set at the 70th percentile or thereabouts. It's about time to do that survey again… but the point is that printing costs don't change truly radically all that quickly. The point of the estimator is to help spot bogus deals—a radically different price probably has something wrong with it.

[Danger Jane]

I'd be cautious about self-publishing. You've put in your effort on the writing front...it's a lot of work to self-publish and self-promote.

But also...how many professional authors really ARE self-published? Most aren't. There's like five books on your list...but you could easily list ten times as many conventionally-published authors, I'm sure.

[banjo]

I've been hanging around, reading other parts of the board. Recently I've been absorbing the wisdom of the Uncle Jim threads. Very beneficial. Trust me I'm not going anywhere.

Jaycinth: My manuscript is in I the final stages. I project the length of the raw MS to be 380 to 400 pages. I have no idea yet about the final rewritten and revised length at this time. Thank you for all the valuable information

Maestrowork: I just ordered Bookmaking. Thank you for that suggestion.

And thank you to all who have contributed to this topic. I'm still listening.

[banjo]

I've been reading the James D Macdonald thread with great interest. And I have a question about it that bears on what we've been discussing. The reason why I didn't ask it on that forum is that the issue was raised back in 2003, and I didn't want to bog down their flow with such a regression.

Uncle Jim cites an article http://www.pw.org/mag/0305/rose.htm from Poets and Writers Magazine. What I read here is that a first time author with a quality book is being jerked around by his publisher and his agent, because they are too busy to provide him what they promised--the old Bait and Switch. It would seems to me by the quick response by both the agent to his querie, and the editor/publisher's rapid responce with a significant advance, that his book must be quallity stuff as opposed to slush.

Uncle Jim seems to believe that it is slush and the author has the Golden word syndrome-unwilling to accept quality editing. The issue is all explained, in the above link, if any one would care to discuss this with me.

I'm very interested in this matter because while I would be reasonable to edits, I wouldn't want my story to be hijacked by an inexperienced or over zealous editor.

Of course, I present this with all respect to Uncle Jim, the editors and experienced authors on the board. Thank you in advance.

[HConn]

Here's a link (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=82398&postcount=111) to Uncle Jim's post. Hope it comes out okay.

The article is skewed and weird, and not just because of Carl's story. Check out this excerpt:

<i>And then they talked about how hard it is to get published and how tens of thousands of manuscripts a year go unsold. In the last two years alone, 70,000 authors have self-published, and who knows how many have just given up because they couldn’t get that one big break that Carl had been handed on a china platter along with his roasted free-range chicken.</i>

Carl P. didn't get some lucky break. He wrote a book that, with some work, readers might want to read. You want to know what the hardest part about getting published is? Writing a publishable book.

Carl P. wrote a book the publisher was interested in. He balked at making some of the changes the editors asked for. He said they didn't make "editorial sense" to him.

Okay. Maybe. Or maybe his book was close to good but not all the way. Maybe he was resisting changes that would push his book to the next level. When the publisher saw that he was fighting them and that they were going to have to publish the book as-is, maybe their enthusiasm dropped.

You only get "bait and switch" when you're the buyer. Carl P. wasn't buying anything. He was selling. That doesn't mean he should have made every requested change. He should keep an open mind and pick his battles. But he's supposed to be working with them, and the article made it sound like he wouldn't. Is it so surprising that, having refused to make requested changes, he didn't receive the book tour and ad campaign?

The crappy thing about the M.J. Rose article is how it makes it sound like getting published is all about luck. You have to write a good book. You have to do everything you can to make it better. The "luck" comes once the book hits the shelves and you hope it finds a readership.

BTW, Banjo, since you don't know me from Adam, let me tell you: I'm no one. Uncle Jim should be back after he finishes teaching at Viable Paradise. He'll be able to address you more completely then, I'm sure.

[Aconite]

banjo, are you familiar with the Anne Rice dust-up a few months ago on Amazon? The short version is, some people gave her latest book bad reviews, and Ms Rice exploded on Amazon. During the rant, she said that she had it written into her contract that no editor could touch a single word of her! precious! manuscript! because her manuscripts were perfect, just the way she wanted them, and an editor would screw them up.

There was general consensus in the book world on two points, which were:
1) No editing? No wonder the book was so bad.
2) Anne, get over yourself. Your words are not as golden as you think they are.

These two points apply to every writer, from bestseller to newbie. While you're worrying about your story being hijacked by an inexperienced editor, keep in mind that you are an inexperienced writer, and you have a lot to learn. It's common for new authors to argue with critiques, because you know what you're trying to do and you think you've done it. A good editor knows when you haven't, and can guide you in the right direction. It's not that people who don't fret about editors messing up their work aren't concerned about creative control. It's that we know editors aren't the enemy, and that their experience can help us make our books better.

[Fishmonkey]

I'm sure that there are many cases with published books where things go wrong -- covers suck, the author is not satisfied with editing, etc etc. But: before you start worrying about whether it'll happen to you, you need to worry about selling the book in the first place. And self-publishing in order to bypass any potential problems is very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[maestrowork]

Understand what "golden word syndrome" is. My publisher told me they had to let one author go because he refused to change even one word -- yup, he thought his ms. was perfect. There are authors like that, and are you one of them?

The fact is, when you've sold your rights to a publisher, you need to abide by the contract. Most contract stipulates that the author must work "with" the editor to make the ms. the best it can be. What they have "bought" is by no means the final product -- it's just a promise, a piece of raw gem, ready to be polished to shine. It doesn't mean the editor is always right and you have to accept every change. Like someone said, you have to pick your battles. No one says the editing process is not painless, and you really do need to work as a team, even though you "wrote" the book. The problem is many authors think because they are the creator of the book, they don't have to listen to the editor... (work at a movie studio for a while and you will see how common and stupid that is -- the geniuses at Pixar, for example, went through many iterations of revisions down to the editing room...scenes are cut out or altered at the last minute). That's just how the creative process work. No one says because you make changes you're not the creator of the work anymore. It just means you're working on making it even better...

After going through that process myself, I can now stand here and say it's worth it. My ego is not this big to believe that everything I do is perfect. At the end, the book is BETTER than what I submitted, but the edits did not betray me or the work. They enhanced it. If nothing else, the proofreading/copyediting was absolutely essential -- I would have been SO embarrassed if the book went out without.

[banjo]

Hello again!



HConn: First of all, you are “somebody” to me. You took the time to read and respond to my question and I am most appreciative.



My take on the article, was that MJ Rose was using sarcasm to say, the attitudes of many publishers/editors and agents were often that authors are Lucky to be published. To which she commented, we are all lucky that authors are published. Otherwise there would be no more publishing industry. She was reminding all of us of the symbiotic nature of our relationship. That such an attitude does us all a disservice, if the publishers feel omnipotent and the authors feel powerless. Those authors would become more involved in the process if their wishes were given more weight in the process.



If the facts in the article were true, both the agent and the publisher thought the world of Carl’s book. They gave him a $75,000 advance, which I’m told almost unheard of for a new author. Uncle Jim says that even with his long backlist of successes, he hasn’t been able to get beyond mid to high five-figures. Hmmm…50,000 to 99,999 dollars US. Sounds to me like Carl is writing to a very high standard already.



So why was he pawned off on a young junior assistant editor whom he felt was too inexperienced to adequately edit his work. Why did her editions amount to a novella? Why didn’t Pandora the editor who promised to edit his book, call him and discuss the editions when she realized the process wasn’t going well? The fact that they promised him one thing and delivered him something is what I call bait and switch. I feel that Carl was indeed buying something. He was buying their services to handle his book, and at the point of negotiations, he seemed to have other options.



Don’t get me wrong, I know that the editing process in necessary. I know that a writer sees his work from his own eyes and often he may see optical illusions. I would be willing to listen to an editor and give careful considerations to his or her recommendations. I do that now. I just don’t want to give up my own voice in the process. I don’t want my book to go somewhere other than where I’m trying to take it. When I use the term hijacked, I mean I want it to still my book, not the editor’s book at the end of the day. I would welcome help and constructive criticism, but I wouldn’t want my art butchered.

[maestrowork]

I just don’t want to give up my own voice in the process. I don’t want my book to go somewhere other than where I’m trying to take it.

You wouldn't have to. And if an editor tries to turn your book to be something it isn't, you could always request a different editor.

[banjo]

Hi Aconite.



I don’t think all my words are golden, just many of them. I make mistakes like every human being does. My position is not, “I’m perfect, screw you!” My position is, “This is my art, give me good and rational reasons to change it.” Grammar, syntax and typos will get little argument. Structural issues, we can discuss. Content, I’ll probably be a pretty hard sell.



You wrote: “While you're worrying about your story being hijacked by an inexperienced editor, keep in mind that you are an inexperienced writer, and you have a lot to learn. It's common for new authors to argue with critiques, because you know what you're trying to do and you think you've done it. A good editor knows when you haven't, and can guide you in the right direction. It's not that people who don't fret about editors messing up their work aren't concerned about creative control. It's that we know editors aren't the enemy, and that their experience can help us make our books better.”



Actually I’m gathering information and carefully weighing my options, at this point. As a matter of fact I’m strongly leaning toward the commercial publishing route because of what you’ve told me here. I mean you, Aconite specifically and you all generally. But I want to be clear on this “commercial novel” concept, and how it differs from just a good novel. I want to have a good understanding of the commercial publishing mindsets and processes. I want to expect that if I go this route that my work will be treated respectfully as art and not simply as some mass-produced, factory stamped widget. My work is personal to me, and while I realize business is somewhat impersonal, I expect at least the level of personal care good customer service demands.



I don’t consider myself an inexperienced writer; Random House just hasn’t published me, YET. (smile) I don’t want somebody doing their on-the-job training on my book. Since it is my art and I take pride in it, I expect others to treat it respectfully. I would think any good author would feel this way about their work. I’m not ego-tripping about how great I am, but I think it is as important for me to protect the integrity of my story, as it is to write it well. I don’t think editors are the enemy, but I would certainly demand a good one. And I would require a good agent as well; as opposed to one who’s too comfy in bed with the other side. I expect that an agent would represent my interests, in the context of remaining reasonable with the publisher and me. Is that asking too much?

[maestrowork]

Since it is my art and I take pride in it, I expect others to treat it respectfully. I would think any good author would feel this way about their work....And I would require a good agent as well; as opposed to one who’s too comfy in bed with the other side. I expect that an agent would represent my interests, in the context of remaining reasonable with the publisher and me. Is that asking too much?


Then find yourself a great agent and editor who believe in your book. Why settle for less? Your book deserves the best.

But don't make the assumption that the traditional publishing world is out to get you, scam you, tear skin off your flesh... they're there to make a buck, and if your book is good and is marketable, they would want to make it the best so that it can make them a lot of bucks.

That's the reality though. Your book is personal to you, but not to them. To them, it's yet another product. Don't expect them to feel personal about your project. But it doesn't mean you can't create a win-win situation.

It bugs me to see someone so defensive before they even start looking for an agent or publisher... that they may want to bypass the whole process because they're afraid what might happen. Why do you think the publishers/agents are going to hurt you? Where did you get that idea? MANY, MANY, MANY (me included) authors went through that process with their integrity and dignity and works intact.

Don't short-change yourself because of this fear. If you give in to this fear -- then you will give in to others. Going POD or self-pub is not the best way, until you've exhausted that "other" way.

[banjo]

Hi Fishmonkey. Interesting username.



I’m concerned about producing a good book from the artistic standpoint as well as from the business standpoint. But the art is extremely important to me.



Hello Maestrowork.



Look I understand that Publishing is a business, with many business considerations. Many times their best interests seem to also be in the best interests of the authors as well. I’m very agreeable with those matters. But if there is a conflict of interests, which certainly happens in publishing, I’ll be on the authors side, me.



Suppose Ace publishing plans to publish 100 books this year and agree to publish yours. But somehow you become 101, which makes it useful for them to give you less than they agreed. That business move might be good for their bottom line, but disastrous for yours.



How would you feel and what would you do?



I discussed the golden word and editing so I won’t belabor that, except to say I agree that both sides should be fair and reasonable and abide by the contract. Which makes contract negotiation critical, and a skilled and loyal agent essential.

[maestrowork]

Suppose Ace publishing plans to publish 100 books this year and agree to publish yours. But somehow you become 101, which makes it useful for them to give you less than they agreed. That business move might be good for their bottom line, but disastrous for yours.

It doesn't work that way. Again, you're thinking ahead of yourself. You simply must learn more about the publishing business and the acquisition process...


I discussed the golden word and editing so I won’t belabor that, except to say I agree that both sides should be fair and reasonable and abide by the contract. Which makes contract negotiation critical, and a skilled and loyal agent essential.


No argument here. That's why we suggested you get a [good] agent who believes in you and your work. Same goes with the editor.

[banjo]

Maestrowork

Don't let it bug you. I'm new here and I have lots of questions. I'm investigating things I've heard and read so I can have a more complete understanding of this process.

Some of my questions came from the few writers I've spoken to personally before I came here. Others have come from what I've read and heard on C-span and book fairs. This is the first opportunity I've had to converse with so many writers and editors.

Sometimes I've found the responses here very defensive, but I've also gathered a lot of very good information. I would not be surprised to discover that there are others here, who have similar questions.

I'm not here to confront and challenge, but to become enlighted. I've been out of school for a long time. So I'm preparing for that red pencil all over my prose.

Til now I've been writing, but I'm about to enter the rewrite and revision phases. I simply want to know as much as I can, so when I finish this part I can hit the bricks running.

For the record, fear is nowhere in my equation. It was certainly not the reason I considered self-publishing. Since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, I was looking to cut out a few corners. But as I mentioned earler, I am reconsidering traditional publishing now, thanks to the logic of what I've read here. I also read some propaganda, which at first made me sceptical, but I factored it in. I have undertaken many new ventures in my life, and while I always try to be open, I never feel like a newbe going in.

I've heard both sides of a conflicting argument. If it seems like I've been cross-examining, it's because I'm searching for the truth before I have to render my own verdict. Thank you for your many enlightened comments and your opinions as well. I welcome all of it.

Please keep your frank and honest comments coming, you're winning me over one lump at a time.

[victoriastrauss]

But I want to be clear on this “commercial novel” concept, and how it differs from just a good novel. I want to have a good understanding of the commercial publishing mindsets and processes.I wonder if it isn't the terminology that's hanging you up here. "Commercial publisher" doesn't mean "a publisher of crass commercial books" but "a publisher that markets to the book trade"--i.e., that does a range of things to get books into the hands of readers. So Alfred Knopf, which is known for publishing literary books, is just as much a commercial publisher as St. Martin's Press, which publishes mysteries, or Harlequin, which publishes romance and women's fiction.

- Victoria

[Tish Davidson]

Banjo,

You do not have to go with an agent just because the agent offers to represent your book. You will be selecting the agent just as much as they will be selecting you. It is okay to say no at many stages of the traditional publishing route. That is what contract negotiations are for. It looks to me like you are getting ahead of yourself in assuming that you will have an agent in bed with the enemy, and inexperienced editor, someone who wants to rip your book to shreds and reconstitute it and ruin it, and a publisher that will lie to you by making promises and going back on them.

You need to understand that you and the agent and the publisher all have the same goal. You want lots of people to read and love your book, because it is part of your soul.Your agent wants lots of people to read and love your book because then she/he will be able to sell the subsidiary rights plus whatever else you write in the future. Your publisher wants gadzillions of people to read and love your book so that they make money and can stay in business and publish more books. The motivations of all parties may differ, but the goal is the same.

Write the best book you can. Query some agents about representation. See what happens. If multiple agents want to represent you, pick the one that most closely shares your vision. If multiple publishers want to publish your book, pick the one that you feel will give it the best treatment. If only one agent or publisher are interested, negotiate for the things that really matter to you, but negotiate from a position of strength - i.e. by having a stong understanding of how the publishing industry works and knowing what you can realistically negotiate and what will get you laughed out of the room. Right now you're putting the cart before the horse. You don't have a finished product. You don't have anyone who wants to publish your book and you're already worrying about having its artistic vision compromised. Do your revision and during that time keep an open mind and try to learn as much as you can about how publishing really works.

[HConn]

This isn't defensiveness, and I'm not sure what propaganda you're talking about. Would you clarify?

Let me drop some more comments in here, and I'll try to be brief because I'm supposed to be in bed:

Publishing has the same dangers as any endeavor that involves other people. You risk working with incompetent people, people who hate their job, people who think they're above all this, people coasting until retirement, and so on. It makes sense that you would find someone somewhere willing to tell horror stories. The weird thing would be if you didn't.

So imagine yourself going to a board of dentists and dentists-in-training and telling them you're planning to pull out your own teeth because you heard about a dentist who operated without painkillers. When people tell you it's a good idea to avoid that kind of situation if you can, you keep on about how attached you are your teeth and you don't want to have someone tugging them out without plenty of drugs. Eating is important.

Or imagine a board of police officers who are trying to explain that, yes, there are bad cops out there, but when something happens, you deal with it as best you can.

The majority of people in the business love their work. They're sure not in it to get rich. Maybe, if your book is the right book, you'll get stuck working with people who don't fit you. Or maybe you won't. It's a business, and sometimes business sucks.

If you want to learn a lot about the publishing business, you should check out The Neverending PublishAmerica Thread over on the Bewares board. I know, it's long. Painfully long. Way longer than Uncle Jim's thread. But in explaining to PA authors why PA isn't a real publisher, professionals go into great detail about how publishing works and what you can and should expect from self-publishing and pro publishing.

Good luck.

[HConn]

I forgot to mention: I have worked with an editor for short stories. It was edifying and occasionally difficult, but the end result was always a better story.

[Tish Davidson]

I'd like to add, banjo, that quite a few people on these boards have worked as editors or in other capacities in traditional publishing in addition to being published writers. You've done a pretty good job of insulting their integrity and judgement. It's a good thing we're a tolerant bunch.

[banjo]

Thank you Tish, for your advice on selecting a good agent, one who shares my vision and a publisher who will do the same. Thank you also speaking on the shared goals of publisher/editor, agent and author. I will follow your advice. In fact I’ve been reading about agents and agencies for the past hour or so.



On getting ahead of myself. Actually I’m gathering information now that I will need later. It seems prudent to me to do it like this, since I had already decided to go that other route, and now I’m strongly leaning toward the traditional route. My objective is to acquire, absorb and internalize what I am learning here. Then I will need time to observe the theory at work. In the end I intend to be as certain as possible, of the course I select.



On insulting the integrity of anyone here. I wasn’t aware that I had insulted anybody. I will apologize nonetheless. My goal is investigation and education for my own purposes and process. Perhaps I’m skeptical by nature, but it has served me well over the years. And much of what I have asked is due to what I’ve heard and read. The rest is for my own information.



I have made it a point to thank every one for their assistance along the way. But my questions are frank and direct, as have been many of the responses I’ve received. I have also been mindful of the many patient and warm responses as well.



Since I have long since reached majority, the possibility exists that I am a bit set in my ways. I don’t like it if I’m talked down to, but I’m very receptive to sincere advice no matter how harshly put. (This does not apply to you, by the way.) I think it is manifested in my voice, as well. In fact I’ve been told that. A good friend calls me Grizzly Adams.



In summary, I find this board a splendid resource and I am making good use of it. Your contributions have convinced me to look at traditional publishing first. I haven’t had so much contact with authors since I was in college, and I think, not even then. I thank you for the patience you have shown me so far. I am sincere in my quest to find my way.

[banjo]

HConn, thank for that detailed and balanced explanation, it is quite helpful. With you permission, I will pass on any further discussion of defensiveness and propaganda, in favor of the higher path.


Thank you Victoria Strauss.

[pianoman5]

It's not a bad idea, banjo, to do some research in advance of having a completed manuscript to pitch, as you have done. I think that if more people did that before lobbing their scripts in the direction of anyone foolish enough to have a mailbox, the slush piles at agents and publishers would be slightly less mountainous and of better average quality. This would be good for all serious writers, as some of the waiting time in the overall process would probably be shortened.

I think you'll have gathered by now that the subject of self- or vanity-publishing quickly elicits some raised hackles around here, largely because of the unconscionable conduct of some of the operators in that industry. I'm sure you'll also have gathered that there are many wise and experienced heads on these boards who have witnessed from an insider's perspective the likely fate of books published by means other than through the established channels. In their discouraging you from going it alone, I can assure you that it is not through any desire to cast you down or p*ss you off, but only from a sincere wish to give you good counsel about the pitfalls of such a path.

You are obviously confident in your own commercial nous and could well be the exception that disproves the rule; but if you look at the numbers for fiction you'll see that the chances of success are slim and the risks are high, and that's a commercially poor proposition by anyone's reckoning.

This is not because of some cosmic ruling that writers deserve to have a hard time of it, but simply on account of a supply and demand situation. There are too many writers for the number of book buyers out there, and this puts even the most talented new writer at a major disadvantage in getting seen and heard. It seems to many of us that the endless process of submitting and waiting is tiresome in the extreme, and you've obviously anticipated that. Some think it's akin to sleeping in a hair shirt on a bed of nails, with someone regularly pouring a bucket of poo on you to dampen your dreams. But that's just the good part.

The main reason for persevering with the 'traditional' way (apart from quality and brand trust considerations) is that bona-fide publishers hold the key to the distribution system, without which we are mere scribblers writing for our own amusement. It's an old business axiom that "nothing happens until somebody buys something" and that's as true in publishing as for any other line of business. More true, actually, because of the returns system extant in bookselling. The way that books are sold is arguably somewhat inefficient, but it works. It relies on low cost of production, convenient ordering and accounting for booksellers, orderly shipping and returns, and high margins for the retailer. And it's a sad but inexorable fact that going it alone largely excludes you from this system.

[cwfgal]

There's an earlier thread that discusses some of these issues that might be helpful. It contains a post where I contrasted my experience, sales, and income from "traditional" or commercial publishing with a self-published book.

You can find it here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=131570#post131570).

Beth

[victoriastrauss]

Don’t get me wrong, I know that the editing process in necessary. I know that a writer sees his work from his own eyes and often he may see optical illusions. I would be willing to listen to an editor and give careful considerations to his or her recommendations. I do that now. I just don’t want to give up my own voice in the process. I don’t want my book to go somewhere other than where I’m trying to take it. When I use the term hijacked, I mean I want it to still my book, not the editor’s book at the end of the day. I would welcome help and constructive criticism, but I wouldn’t want my art butchered.Another question for you, banjo--I'm wondering why you are--or seem to be--giving a single secondhand "horror" story (M.J. Rose's article about Carl P) greater weight than the firsthand experience of the several published writers who've weighed in on this thread to say they haven't experienced evil things at the hands of their editors?

My first editor was a wonderful mentor, champion, and friend, and I learned more from her about writing than I ever have from anyone. My second editor was none of those things, but she offered excellent insights and we worked in comfortable collaboration. My third editor (who inherited my last two books from the editor who originally acquired them) is the most distant of the three, with a mostly hands-off approach; I have the feeling that my work is not to her taste, and if I'd submitted to her originally she wouldn't have bought the books. But she is prompt and professional and has made a number of helpful suggestions, and we have a good working relationship.

None of the three editors forced change on me. All helped me improve my manuscripts. My current situation is not ideal, but I'm not complaining. Of course I'd rather to be working with someone who adored my work and championed it to the Powers That Be; but I think that sort of idealized Max Perkins-style relationship was never common, even back in the Good Old Days before conglomeration.

So that's my non-horror story. Anyone else?

- Victoria

[aruna]

Sure. I had an editor who seemed to have second sight when it came to what was right for my books; she seemed to have an intuitive knowledge of what the story SHOULD BE, and saw things I couldn't see myself. She made suggestions that were so right-on I took them up eagerly, and the books only improved through her advice. In a very few cases, I felt she was wrong, and said so; never did she say I HAD to do so-and-so.
In the end, it didn't work out but, that was for reasons beyond her control; I could no longer write the kind of books that publisher - ie the sales team - thought were salable, and I felt we were no longer on the same page regarding wjhere I wanted to go as a writer. So we parted company, but on friedndly terms. Her last words to me were "I look forward to reading you again" with another publisher.

[maestrowork]

I have a good publisher. I had a nice editor. Together we made my ms. even better than I first wrote it. Sure, I got a little upset in the beginning because of a miscommunication problem and stylistic dispute, but that blew over quickly. I accepted plenty of suggestions that I felt improved the book, but I also disagreed with my editor on many things -- we discussed and agreed on the "accepts/rejects." No shouting matches. Everyone was very professional.

The editing process took a little longer than I thought, but it went well. We understood that we were a team, and there was never a question who the "author" was and that it was my vision, my work, my story, my characters. But our goal was the same -- to make this a good book that would sell. I want readers (and maybe a nice chump of change in my pocket). My publisher wants to at least not lose money. LOL.

And yes, this is my first book. I am a newbie.

[Jaycinth]

There's this commercial where a traditional professor tells his writing class that most of them will never be published because of the competitiveness. Then a student stands up and tells everyone they can be published next week with the use of a glorified copy machine. (GAG!!!!!)

I HATE that commercial. During years spent working for a commercial printing company, every few weeks some jerk would come in with a business card naming the jerk as the president of Jerkoff (pardon) Press. They'd get quotes for 'printing' (copying) a quantity (small) of a book (not theirs). One A****** even brought his 'client' in, and showed her around with terms like "This is our big Komori and of course your covers will be printed on this and look like this.." (He was showing her work we were doing for another client that had nothing to do with her job, or even books in general.)
It's a shame that someone 'accidentally' mailed her the price quote that was given to him. He blew up at us and said he'd never bring anymore work into our shop. ( Owner was mad, no one else was. A work and turn and cut and collate and bind is a pain, especially on a small run.)
But the problem is anyone with a crappy business card can present themselves as Persona Perfecto; Owner and President of Isagonnascrewyou Press. And then the innocent, eager, and gullible fall prey.
If you need 50 copies of your recipies or family history for a church or family get together; or if your poetry group wants a hundred copies of their collected poems to give away as gifts to new members, rent a copy machine and do it yourself. But a reasonable cost-benefit analysis of what it would take for a person to print as few as 1,000 paperback books and distribute them should hit one in the face with the force of an F-16!
Don't do it. And don't believe a fancy business card that says X-man is President of Doo Doo Press! ( Well, you can believe the doo doo part!)
And DON'T watch that commercial!

[TeddyG]

I honestly don't know or understand why any writer or author who wants to be published and have people READ what he/she wrote, would have anything against a professional editor.

Yes, some editors are really bad.
Yes, some editors make you want to scratch a blackboard with long fingernails.
Yes, some editors will force you to swallow 5 valiums at once, and make you shake your fist at the heavens because no one appreciates that you are the next O'henry.

BUT...the editor is crucial to the process. Sure, you will get hurt along the way because the editor has the NERVE to make you take out what you thought to be the best paragraph ever written in the annals of literature. BUT, when you look at the finished product, and the Editor is a GOOD editor, you will be thankful you had that team of professionals by your side.

I hate .. let me make this clear...I cringe..when I think of the editor taking my work apart. I know I am going to be ready to tear my agent limb from limb because she said he was good and the best in the publishing house! And I also know, deep down, that the editor was usually right. Not always, but usually.

So I save my fights for the important times, when I think the editor is getting just a bit too heavy handed with the crossouts.

But to go with NO editor? hell that is suicide. Might as well just do one draft, lop it together and self-publish the work and hope your family buys it to make you feel good.

It is a process of refining the work. The better the work the more chance it has. Proofread, spell-check and edit. AGAIN AND AGAIN. And then let the professionals work at it a bit more.

Good Editors are hard to find. But if you have a decent editor, dont kick the gift-horse in the mouth. And if you hate everything he/she says, maybe it is time for a bit of mirror-pondering.

You did the writing. Let the Editor do his work. I promise you - you will be glad he/she did.

Teddy

[Aconite]

My position is not, “I’m perfect, screw you!” My position is, “This is my art, give me good and rational reasons to change it.” Grammar, syntax and typos will get little argument. Structural issues, we can discuss. Content, I’ll probably be a pretty hard sell.
Then you'll probably find working with an editor a pleasant, professional experience. Really, I doubt you have nearly as much to worry about as you think. If an editor didn't like your content, they generally wouldn't make you an offer in the first place.

My work is personal to me, and while I realize business is somewhat impersonal, I expect at least the level of personal care good customer service demands.
The thing to keep in mind is that if editors didn't love books, they wouldn't be editors. It's not for the money, the glamour, or the easy hours, that's for sure! When an editor finds a good book they can put out in front of an audience, that's a happy, happy day. The editor doesn't want to see your book screwed up. The editor sees plenty of screwed-up manuscripts every day. What the editor wants is to have an excellent book to put in the hands of readers, preferably lots of readers so the editor can continue to work and you can continue to write and the publishing house doesn't go under. That's where the "commercial" part comes in.

I don’t consider myself an inexperienced writer; Random House just hasn’t published me, YET. (smile)
LOL! That's right: think big. Seriously, though, if you haven't been published, you're still an inexperienced writer, no matter how much writing you've done informally. There are a few exceptions, but in general, publication is how you earn your chops.

I don’t want somebody doing their on-the-job training on my book.
Keep in mind that by the time someone has worked their way up to editor, they've been in publishing a while. New editors in established houses aren't greenies to publishing, just to the position.

And I would require a good agent as well; as opposed to one who’s too comfy in bed with the other side. I expect that an agent would represent my interests, in the context of remaining reasonable with the publisher and me. Is that asking too much?
Your agent works for you, period. Any agent you ever catch cutting a deal with the publisher at your expense should be fired on the spot and then staked over a fire-ant mound. But it doesn't make sense for an agent to do such a thing; after all, they're getting paid on commission, so it only makes sense for your agent to cut the very best deal for you they can. The publisher's comfort is not your agent's concern. Now, a good agent will know what you can push for with certain publishers and what you can't; that's part of the experience you're paying for, after all. That's not being in bed with the other side. That's just knowing how to pick your battles.

Have you come across Miss Snark (http://misssnark.blogspot.com/)? She's an agent, and I think you'd get a kick out of her blog, which is blunt, funny, and intelligent. You'd probably enjoy it.

[cwfgal]

My first agent suggested some changes to my ms before agreeing to take me on. They were all excellent suggestions and after considering each one, I incorporated all but one of them. When I sent her the revised ms, I explained in my cover letter why I rejected the one suggestion.

She later told me she did this because she wanted to see how open I was to such suggestions and how easy I would be to work with. She said highly defensive writers who are unwilling to make changes, consider alternatives, or who will argue themselves blue in the face because they are determined to keep their precious works intact word for word, are more of a headache than most agents and editors want to be bothered with.

My editor also suggested changes to each of my books. I incorporated those I wanted to, discussed some I was unsure about, and in the end made only those changes I was comfortable with (which was almost all of them).

I think all the incorporated changes suggested by my agent and editor vastly improved the works.

And in my opinion, any writer who believes his or her work can't be improved upon is a writer who will most likely never be published.

Beth

[banjo]

Many thanks to all of you. You've sold me. I intend to begin mailing out queries once my rewriting and revision is complete.

Forgive the pushy nature of my interrogation, but it has greatly benefited me. I hope I haven't pi**ed too many of you off. You'll be seeing me around the board for a long time.

Thanks for the many resources and suggestions. Thanks for the links and recommended threads. I've been following them up so feverishly, I had to switch form coffee to tea as the days have worn on. Thanks for the descriptions of the printing side of the business, the advantages of an agent and a good editor, the Publish Amerca thread(though I never intended to go that route, I was thinking of digital printing as the extent of my involvement), thank you for the James Macdonald thread, and so much more. Thanks.

I'll have to speak to my fellow author, Reggie Cook, and get him over here reading. I think he can benefit as well. He, also, is a very good writer. He has two excellent books already at the query stage.

It has only been a week or so since I came aboard, and it has already been and exciting sail so far. Well, time to make another cup and get back to work.

[HConn]

One more link for you:

A blog by a former editor and current agent. (http://agentoo7.blogspot.com/)

There aren't that many entries and most are well worth reading.

Good luck.

[kristin724]

Self Publishing to me is a bit of a dirty word. Can any writer with a real life job and family really afford some of the asking prices? Besides, why would anyone want to pay to have their work published?

I am an idealist still that your work will speak for itself. Especially in today's market's there are plenty of other options than self publishing. Of course, my father says I won't be a famous writer until after I'm dead! :ROFL:

[banjo]

I've just begun reading a book called the "First Five Pages" by Noah Lukeman. I't a writer's guide to staying out of the rejection pile. It is enlightening already and I'm reserving judgement until I've finished the book but he has already said a couple of things which disturb me.

1) He seems obsessed with the elimination of adverbs and adjectives. And while I agree that too many are too much, I think I would prefer to keep more than he recommends. How else is a writer to render well?

2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights." Really! I would only accept that with a huge advance. In referrence to something discussed at the beginning of this thread, I won't feel lucky just to be published; only if I'm published with the right deal.

Mr. Lukeman says that there are so many ms thrown at agents and editors, they read them not to evaluate them for approval, but looking for an excuse to reject them.

Would anyone care to comment?

[Fishmonkey]

I've just begun reading a book called the "First Five Pages" by Noah Lukeman. I't a writer's guide to staying out of the rejection pile. It is enlightening already and I'm reserving judgement until I've finished the book but he has already said a couple of things which disturb me.

1) He seems obsessed with the elimination of adverbs and adjectives. And while I agree that too many are too much, I think I would prefer to keep more than he recommends. How else is a writer to render well?

2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights." Really! I would only accept that with a huge advance. In referrence to something discussed at the beginning of this thread, I won't feel lucky just to be published; only if I'm published with the right deal.

Mr. Lukeman says that there are so many ms thrown at agents and editors, they read them not to evaluate them for approval, but looking for an excuse to reject them.

Would anyone care to comment?

1) I honestly don't think that any editor or agent counts adverbs on the page. If you need them, use them. The problem is to know what's 'too many', and many beginning writers rely on them excessively, hence the frequently heard advice 'avoid adverbs'. I would modify it into 'avoid unnecessary adverbs and adjectives.' Too often it's just lazy writing -- 'he walked slowly toward the rusty, metal, creaking door that towered ominously' is the sort of sentence often found in the beginner's work. But once you learn what works, I'd say use all adjectives and adverbs you need.

2) No. In case of an agent, perhaps -- if their agency handles movie rights, foreign rights etc., but only after an offer of representation and subsequent discussion. Editors -- no way.

And yes, agents/editors are going to reject you the moment something causes their attention to wander, or if your prose doesn't grab them. They are certainly not looking to give a new writer a break or give them a chance; neither will the readers, so it's a good thing.

[victoriastrauss]

1) He seems obsessed with the elimination of adverbs and adjectives. And while I agree that too many are too much, I think I would prefer to keep more than he recommends. How else is a writer to render well?A lot of people seem to be obsessed with this. Me, I don't think about it. Bad writing is bad writing, with or without adverbs or adjectives. Ditto for good writing.
2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights." Really! I would only accept that with a huge advance.When you sign with an agent, you're giving him permission to sell as many of your rights as he can, as advantageously as he can (I imagine this could be negotiated, but you might make yourself less attractive as a client). This is in your interest--he has the connections to do it, and you probably don't.

Publishers typically want as many rights as they can get. But it's very much in your agent's interest to keep rights out of the publisher's hands; he won't make any money on rights the publisher sells or licenses, but if he sells them himself he'll make 15%. A good agent, therefore, will negotiate for you to hold onto as many rights as possible. How successfully he can do this depends on a number of things--the publisher's policies, your agent's clout (this is yet another reason to avoid marginal agents), your track record if you're an established writer, and your position on the publisher's list if you're a new writer.
Mr. Lukeman says that there are so many ms thrown at agents and editors, they read them not to evaluate them for approval, but looking for an excuse to reject them.I think that's probably one of those glass-half-full/glass-half-empty things--it's all in the way you look at it. Another agent or editor might say the opposite.

I don't think an agent or editor needs an excuse to reject most of what's submitted, anyway. It rejects itself.

- Victoria

[HConn]

How else is a writer to render well?

The traditional answer is "with more evocative nouns and verbs" but Victoria's answer is better.

2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights." Really! I would only accept that with a huge advance. In referrence to something discussed at the beginning of this thread, I won't feel lucky just to be published; only if I'm published with the right deal.

Be sure you know what a standard deal is.

Mr. Lukeman says that there are so many ms thrown at agents and editors, they read them not to evaluate them for approval, but looking for an excuse to reject them.

You say that like evaluating them for approval and looking for an excuse to reject them are two different things

[Aconite]

2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights."
That statement makes me question Mr. Lukeman's credentials to write this book. Anyone who has sold or bought manuscripts should know better. For pity's sake, with the sale of the very book he says that in he should have learned better, if he didn't already know it--unless he got the lousiest agent and lousiest deal you can imagine, in which case I'd decline to take his advice on getting published.

[Fishmonkey]

That statement makes me question Mr. Lukeman's credentials to write this book. Anyone who has sold or bought manuscripts should know better. For pity's sake, with the sale of the very book he says that in he should have learned better, if he didn't already know it--unless he got the lousiest agent and lousiest deal you can imagine, in which case I'd decline to take his advice on getting published.

From what I understand, Mr Lukeman is well-regarded. It is almost impossible to get to his website, since its hidden behind pages and pages of bestsellers and celebrities he represents. I personally was turned off by the fact that he sells the book with his advice on query letters (all 80 pages of it) as a pdf download off his website. For twenty-five bucks. A bit stiff for an e-book, but we're selling to the desperate here....

[Euan H.]

That statement makes me question Mr. Lukeman's credentials to write this book. ...
Try these. (http://www.lukeman.com/def2-Awards.htm)
Or these. (http://www.lukeman.com/def4-bestsellers.htm)
Or these. (http://www.lukeman.com/def2.htm)

While I have some problems with the over-simplistic examples he uses in the book (and with other things as well--like the pdf downloads sold on his site), I don't think you can reasonably question the man's credentials--at least in terms of picking out good to great books.

[Aconite]

I'll grant that he has the credentials to pick successful books. I'm not willing to grant that he should be writing advice books on writing if he can't be clear and accurate about a basic part of commercial writing.

[SC Harrison]

Banjo, I can't give you any of the intricate details of the stages involved in traditional publishing, and I can't give you any insight as to how to rise to the top of the slush pile.

I can tell you what will likely take place if you self-publish. You will spend a great deal of time (and money) trying to gain exposure for your book, using every opportunity that presents itself to either sell or talk about your book. At first, this is somewhat exciting, because you believe every person who reads it will become an advocate, soon allowing you to relax and prepare for the inevitable media interest. After a few months with nominal sales and still no buzz, you will anxiously seek other methods that people claim will generate sales and broader exposure. You may even contemplate the pros & cons of paid advertising, in the belief that, if you can just break even, you will have reached many more readers who will buy your book. If you can get to the point where you accept that this isn't going to work without going deeply into debt, consider yourself lucky.

All of this time would be better spent writing something new or polishing a ms for submission to a traditional publisher. It took a long time for me to accept what I should have known from the start—there is no short-cut to success in this field. The only way to get there is the writing itself, but that's okay. It's the only part I like, anyway.

[victoriastrauss]

Originally Posted by banjo
2) "...when you submit your manuscript to an agent or editor, you are offering all rights."
That statement makes me question Mr. Lukeman's credentials to write this book. Anyone who has sold or bought manuscripts should know better.But Lukeman is correct. You are offering all rights, in the sense that when you approach an agent or editor with your manuscript, everything's on the table. It's then up to you and/or your agent to negotiate things as much to your advantage as possible.

- Victoria

[banjo]

Thank you all, for your valuable insights. Lukeman's advice gets better as the book proceeds. As a matter of fact, it seems he doesn't dislike adjectives and adverbs quite as much as he states in the beginning; he uses plenty of them in his examples of good writing. I agree that using them excessively makes your book less than it can be.

Thank you especially for bringing clarity to his comment about "all rights", and the difference between giving them to an editor and an agent. Thank you also, for the links that demonstrate his impressive ability to pick winners. The first two pages of his book lists the praises of publishing industry.

[Aconite]

But Lukeman is correct. You are offering all rights, in the sense that when you approach an agent or editor with your manuscript, everything's on the table. It's then up to you and/or your agent to negotiate things as much to your advantage as possible.
Okay, I'll accept that explanation. I still think that, given the way nearly every inexperienced writer interprets "offering all rights," he should have been much more careful with that phrase.

[banjo]

Yeah. It almost scared me back into the other camp! :box:

After that alarming begining, the book became an important resource for me. I'm happy that I found it.

By the way, I spoke to my self-publishing friend Reggie Cook, and recommended he read Lukeman. He told me that he had sent out over 90 queries for his book, "Veil", before he opted to use a digital printer and publish it himself. They were all rejections or ignores. I've read the book and it is very good; better than many I've read recently from mainstream publihsers. He said he might query his second book which is already in beta form; it's even better than his first.

He told me of a UCLA book workshop he visits occasionally. They have many good writers and they have the same problem he has had. They were very interested by how he got his book in print. Even the moderator, who is an instructor at the school, was impressed by his cover and professionalism. And so far his marketing is very effective as well.

He is a more prolific writier than I have been until now. I'm beginning to mimic his work habits, which are exactly what is recommended here--two to four hours BIC each day. He and many of his associates feel that their rejections have less to do with the quality of their manuscripts and more with the workload of editors and sucessful agents today. Lukeman tends to confirm this belief. The beta of "Veil" was circulated an well received by a broad spectrum of readers and well received by all, except the industry.

Imagine me, now encouraging him try the mainstream. You've done a good job selling me, so far. :flag: