Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
my work is available on my website for preview if you're interested in reading the first three chapters
I did.
Another Author Dissing Self-publishing by Comparing It to Uploading Home Movies to Youtube
- Thread starter Dani
- Start date
- Status
I did.
Kriven
Banned
This thread is quickly degrading, yet again, into the kind of pissing contest it was trying to prevent.
Hi all!
If I could, I'd like to get some clarification from the folks out there who are actually dialed in to the trade publishing industry.
If I understand correctly, the industry went through a contraction, primarily brought about by the recession. As a result, they cut staff, including editing staff, and trimmed a lot of their mid-list authors.
Also as a result, they have scaled back their releases and cut back on the number of new authors they bring on board, banking more on their biggest-selling authors.
I don't know if this is reliable information, which is why I would like clarification. If they have scaled back on new authors and don't have the amount of editing staff to work with them, then more submissions are going to be turned away, whether they're any good or not.
And it would also extend to agents, too, wouldn't it? Knowing the industry as well as they do, wouldn't they have to scale back the number of new clients they take on? There would be an increase in the number of rejections from them, as well.
Before the recession, I was already reading articles written about the slushpiles, and some of the writers said that publishers rejected a lot of good manuscripts - not great ones, but a lot of good ones. I would expect that is even more true now, if the industry has scaled back the way I've read it has.
I think what hurts the most is some authors seek acceptance from the trade publishers as validation of their work. They may be getting their ms rejected and assuming it's because it stank, when it's possible that a limit has been reached that the author isn't aware of.
Lacking guidance other than "No thanks," from the industry, I can see why many people would throw in the towel and self-publish.
Anyway, if someone could clarify how much of that is true vs how much is BS, I'd like to hear their insight.
Thanks!
If I could, I'd like to get some clarification from the folks out there who are actually dialed in to the trade publishing industry.
If I understand correctly, the industry went through a contraction, primarily brought about by the recession. As a result, they cut staff, including editing staff, and trimmed a lot of their mid-list authors.
Also as a result, they have scaled back their releases and cut back on the number of new authors they bring on board, banking more on their biggest-selling authors.
I don't know if this is reliable information, which is why I would like clarification. If they have scaled back on new authors and don't have the amount of editing staff to work with them, then more submissions are going to be turned away, whether they're any good or not.
And it would also extend to agents, too, wouldn't it? Knowing the industry as well as they do, wouldn't they have to scale back the number of new clients they take on? There would be an increase in the number of rejections from them, as well.
Before the recession, I was already reading articles written about the slushpiles, and some of the writers said that publishers rejected a lot of good manuscripts - not great ones, but a lot of good ones. I would expect that is even more true now, if the industry has scaled back the way I've read it has.
I think what hurts the most is some authors seek acceptance from the trade publishers as validation of their work. They may be getting their ms rejected and assuming it's because it stank, when it's possible that a limit has been reached that the author isn't aware of.
Lacking guidance other than "No thanks," from the industry, I can see why many people would throw in the towel and self-publish.
Anyway, if someone could clarify how much of that is true vs how much is BS, I'd like to hear their insight.
Thanks!
Diane, I'll try to answer your questions later when I have more time but meanwhile, I have to address this:
We are SO not going to play this game here. Back off, the pair of you, or I'll give you both a time-out.
Thank you, Kriven. Much appreciated.
my work is available on my website for preview if you're interested in reading the first three chapters
We are SO not going to play this game here. Back off, the pair of you, or I'll give you both a time-out.
Thank you, Kriven. Much appreciated.
There's no need to apologise, Rebekah. But it's nice that you did.
Now. Where were we? Ah, yes. I'm meant to be responding to Diane. It might have to wait until tomorrow, I'm afraid. Nudge me if I don't do it, please.
Now. Where were we? Ah, yes. I'm meant to be responding to Diane. It might have to wait until tomorrow, I'm afraid. Nudge me if I don't do it, please.
Aye, my point was that it wouldn't have found a home the big trade publishers because they wouldn't breakout that significantly. It got signed because of it was already very successful and then got even more successful. The problem is that they miss out on a lot of stories out there because they don't want to or can't see the value in very different types of books. (or maybe books with a focus on erotica, I dunno--On The Island would be another great example, as is pretty much all of Hockning's stories). Does that make sense?
Depending on which genres you like to read, that's probably true. But if you're like me and stick to one or two genres, you can feel much like they put the same ole same ole out there and there's very little to read that's different.
QFT
Also QFDitto.
Yep. Pretty much. Some publishers did; some didn't. The bigger ones did, but the smallest ones were already working close to the wire and had little to cut back on.
Not necessarily.
I know of several good midlist authors who found they couldn't get new contracts, while their publishers continued to acquire books from new authors (debut and not-debut).
Those biggest-selling authors have continued to get the same sorts of deals they always did, but advances for most others have become tighter and more difficult to get in the first place.
Every year, publishers get more choosy about what they take on. And yet they have more submissions than they can easily cope with.
I'm optimistic enough to think that the best books will almost always find a good home if they're submitted appropriately--in the right way, and to the right people, at the right time.
Good agents have always taken on only the books they think they can sell, and which they are passionate about. Those books represent a miniscule proportion of the slush pile. If agents do cut back on the number of new authors they take on each year that means that they're rejecting one or two more writers each year.
There are writers who might well have got a deal five years ago who won't get one now. Or who will be much more widely rejected before getting that offer. Or who get offered a smaller advance, or a less favourable publication slot. Or who will only find a place at a smaller press which is more willing to take a punt on them.
They only make up a tiny proportion of writers submitting.
And when these really good writers get rejected by agents and publishers then they will usually be given feedback on what went wrong for them, or referrals to other houses or agencies, or a request that they send in more of their work if possible. The closer you get, the more likely you are to be helped along the way.
If a really good book is rejected because some limit has been reached but the rejecting editor or agent thinks highly of it, it's highly likely to find a place where those limits haven't been reached, or where the publishers have a little more flexibility. If the book isn't so good then it's less likely to find a home. We all just need to write really good books![/QUOTE]
But the writers of the best books do get advice, usually; and rejection isn't a good enough reason to self publish. As has already been said, the most common reason for books to be rejected is that they're bad; and self publishing is really hard work. You shouldn't take it on just because you couldn't get a trade contract.
Is that any help at all?
You're welcome.
It's also worth remembering that the staff who were made redundant a couple of years ago have not ceased to exist: a reasonable proportion of them now work as freelancers, so their skills are still available to publishers now that things are picking up again.
It's also worth remembering that the staff who were made redundant a couple of years ago have not ceased to exist: a reasonable proportion of them now work as freelancers, so their skills are still available to publishers now that things are picking up again.
I'll agree there should be less animosity, less chest-beating from the self- and traditional publishing advocates.
But I also have to say that self-publishing is only going to grow as an avenue for writers, and writing will benefit from that. I think about the state of the music industry twenty years ago, when every band was out to "get signed." Indie artists did make their own records, but none of them really believed they could make a career doing it. We were all just waving our arms hoping to catch the attention of some A&R guy.
But over the years, more and more bands started doing it on their own. The earliest, completely independent bands I remember were Fugazi and Superchunk in the '90s. Industry executives and even the music listening public kind of dismissed them as fanatics who probably wouldn't last very long. But because of them, every band that starts out today has a clear, viable option to go it alone. And audiences no longer seem to have that immediate idea of something from a major label being somehow more professional.
I'd like to see publishing (at least fiction and poetry) get to the same point. Plenty of lousy writers will self-publish, true. But good ones won't have to let an agent or publisher decide if the public sees their book -- unless they want to. A little healthy competition from self-publishers might even encourage the traditional industry to take a few more risks.
take care
---Jones()
But I also have to say that self-publishing is only going to grow as an avenue for writers, and writing will benefit from that. I think about the state of the music industry twenty years ago, when every band was out to "get signed." Indie artists did make their own records, but none of them really believed they could make a career doing it. We were all just waving our arms hoping to catch the attention of some A&R guy.
But over the years, more and more bands started doing it on their own. The earliest, completely independent bands I remember were Fugazi and Superchunk in the '90s. Industry executives and even the music listening public kind of dismissed them as fanatics who probably wouldn't last very long. But because of them, every band that starts out today has a clear, viable option to go it alone. And audiences no longer seem to have that immediate idea of something from a major label being somehow more professional.
I'd like to see publishing (at least fiction and poetry) get to the same point. Plenty of lousy writers will self-publish, true. But good ones won't have to let an agent or publisher decide if the public sees their book -- unless they want to. A little healthy competition from self-publishers might even encourage the traditional industry to take a few more risks.
take care
---Jones()
I've worked in both trade publishing (and please read this room's guidelines, Jones, with regard to "traditional" publishing, and take note) and for a music company, and the similarities aren't as great as many people who make this comparison seem to think.
For the record, agents don't "decide if the public sees [a] book", they weigh up the chances of being able to sell books they love, and when they see a potentially commerical book which they don't actually like, most won't offer representation; and trade publishing takes risks every time they sign up a new title. No books come with an inbuilt guarantee of success, and while some have a pretty good chance of it others are far less predictable. But publishers do have to make money in order to be able to stay in business and publish other books, so we shouldn't encourage them to take unnecessary risks; and we must remember that they are in business to provide good books to the reading public, which they're doing a good job at, and not to please writers who want to see their books on the best-sellers lists.
For the record, agents don't "decide if the public sees [a] book", they weigh up the chances of being able to sell books they love, and when they see a potentially commerical book which they don't actually like, most won't offer representation; and trade publishing takes risks every time they sign up a new title. No books come with an inbuilt guarantee of success, and while some have a pretty good chance of it others are far less predictable. But publishers do have to make money in order to be able to stay in business and publish other books, so we shouldn't encourage them to take unnecessary risks; and we must remember that they are in business to provide good books to the reading public, which they're doing a good job at, and not to please writers who want to see their books on the best-sellers lists.
Apologies. I'll get a look at the guidelines. Also, I seem to have offended you. Apologies for that as well.
take care
---Jones()
take care
---Jones()
You haven't offended me, Jones. I just corrected some of the inaccurate claims you made and added some context. It's what we do around here. You'll get used to it.
Welcome to AW, by the way. It's a great place to be.
Welcome to AW, by the way. It's a great place to be.
- Status