I'm thinking of giving up on Standard Model Publishing

Harry Connolly self-published at least one sequel after Del Rey dropped his acclaimed 'Twenty Palaces' UF series. He just self-published the first two of a new fantasy series, too.

I know of several other authors who were commercial midlisters who got back rights to OOP books, and self-published new versions. They seem to be doing all right.

Slhuang is right: it's different work to self-publish, no less difficult, but it suits some authors better than the commercial route. I've heard that it helps to piggyback a growing self-pub rep to an existing commercial career. I'm a nobody, so I still need the commercial machine for a while.

I wish you the best luck, no matter what you choose. Myself, I chose self-publishing too quickly without giving adequate thought or putting forth enough effort with the traditional route. So, think carefully.

I uploaded my first novel way too early! Big mistake.

My first attempt at self publishing was a disaster. The problem is it's so easy to write and then upload what you've written. I soon discovered that good writing can be destroyed by poor editing. I was getting three star reviews because the readers liked the writing. But everyone one of them pointed out how bad the editing was.

I took some time off, dedicated myself to improving my writing, and made a commitment to have my book professionally edited. I also had my cover designed by a professional.

What a huge difference. The same story is now getting four and five star reviews. I didn't change the writing. My reviews told me I didn't need to do that. I listened to their criticism, licked my wounds, and focused on doing this writing thing the right way.

For a first time author it's nearly impossible to attract an agent or a traditional publisher. If you are one, don't waste time chasing that dream. Focus on writing, editing, and promoting. Even if you somehow land a publishing contract, you're still going to have to do most of the marketing and promoting yourself. They aren't going to put much money into promoting an unknown author.

tlhuston said:

For a first time author it's nearly impossible to attract an agent or a traditional publisher. If you are one, don't waste time chasing that dream. Focus on writing, editing, and promoting. Even if you somehow land a publishing contract, you're still going to have to do most of the marketing and promoting yourself. They aren't going to put much money into promoting an unknown author.

Click to expand...

Your post is interesting, but this part is, entirely, untrue. Misinformation, plain and simple.

I'm glad you were able to improve your book and get great reviews, tlhuston. I don't agree with this, though:

tlhuston said:

For a first time author it's nearly impossible to attract an agent or a traditional publisher. If you are one, don't waste time chasing that dream.

Click to expand...

There seem to be quite a few people on this board who did the nearly impossible.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether it's a writer's first rodeo or twentieth book. If Book #20 is poorly written and stale in terms of execution and marketability, I doubt it will be better received than a fresh, polished Book #1. In fact, most publishers would prefer to discover a shiny new debut writer rather than one with a history of sub-par sales.

tlhuston said:

For a first time author it's nearly impossible to attract an agent or a traditional publisher. If you are one, don't waste time chasing that dream. Focus on writing, editing, and promoting. Even if you somehow land a publishing contract, you're still going to have to do most of the marketing and promoting yourself. They aren't going to put much money into promoting an unknown author.

Click to expand...

I was enjoying your post right up until the last paragraph. I don't know if I ever read something more wrong in all my life. You're simply way off wrong. The problem I have with this is that those new to writing might think you are actually stating an informed opinion and follow this paragraph as advice. So I must call it out as 100% inaccurate.

Tlhuston, like most readers I was nodding in solidarity right up to your last paragraph. And then...

No, non, and nyet. That's lazy misinformation at best. *Awful* new writers have next to no chance with responsible agents and publishers. The burden of entry doesn't rest with the agents and publishers, but with the authors. *Great* new writers often jump to the head of the line just by virtue of good writing. Agents and publishers desperately want to see that. They'll fight over it. They'll gloat a bit when they get it. New writers who are brilliant are a treasured commodity.

Have you read a commercial slush pile or two? I have. They are not generally filled with undiscovered gems. The reason why people look down on vanity and self-publishing is what you admitted, yourself: it's too easy. No slogging for years through solitary effort, workshops, and rejection letters, just click-n-publish.

I commend you for realizing you needed to focus on quality, and I'm happy your resulting sales and reviews reinforce it. Many self-published authors never reach that clarity.

As Diana and others have said, the game is a little different for established midlisters. They have experience and skill, but not that all-important marketability. Self-publishing can be a sanity-saving boon to them.

Marian Perera said:

I'm glad you were able to improve your book and get great reviews, tlhuston. I don't agree with this, though:



There seem to be quite a few people on this board who did the nearly impossible.

I don't think it has anything to do with whether it's a writer's first rodeo or twentieth book. If Book #20 is poorly written and stale in terms of execution and marketability, I doubt it will be better received than a fresh, polished Book #1. In fact, most publishers would prefer to discover a shiny new debut writer rather than one with a history of sub-par sales.

Click to expand...

Although I generally do agree with this, I HAVE seen lots of authors who have put out books that are pretty bad, and they're allowed to because they've made those sales on previous books. Just last night I read a book by a USA bestselling author. Or at least I tried to. It was boring, I didn't care for the MC, and it was a lot of telling. And the whole time I'm thinking the author got away with it because she's a USA bestselling author, has that track record. But if she had submitted it as a debut novel, no way would it have passed muster. And yes, I ended up closing the book, and I don't plan to finish it later.

It's like with JK Rowling's latter books in the Harry Potter series. Even she said it could have done with more editing. But she was given a lot of leeway, because she's JK Rowling. And like with Stephen King, Anne Rice, etc. While I think those author probably still put out good works, sometimes it's the name that plays a big role in getting the next contract.

chompers said:

Although I generally do agree with this, I HAVE seen lots of authors who have put out books that are pretty bad, and they're allowed to because they've made those sales on previous books.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. What I meant was : if there are two writers both trying to break into trade publishing, one with excellent, marketable Book #1 and one with dull, poorly written Book #20, the manuscripts are going to matter more than the fact that the first writer is a newbie (assuming neither writer has an excellent track record sales-wise).

Once you have a track record of great sales, the evaluation criteria can be different.

Then can someone possibly explain why Bill Birnes (of UFO Hunters fame) said himself even Trade published authors have to truck a lot of self-promotion? I'm honestly curious here.

This is a Trade published author saying this.

Yes, although I keep hearing about this promotional time limit. After a certain two year time span, it's left to the author to promote their work. And honestly, I'm happy to promote my work in a limited capacity.

Now a lot of self-publishers, I did have to unfollow. Like this one didn't seem to get the message I'm not his target audience. But that's more of a bad way to promote.

So there are both sides.

OP - good on you. I'm pretty certain I'm going to be do the same, although I haven't bothered with trade publishing. Originally I was really against the idea, but the more and more I thought about it it made sense.

Yeah, there are a lot of awful self-pubbed books. But are they awful because they're self-pubbed? No.

From what I can tell the most common criticisms of self-pubbed books are: bad cover, poor developmental and copy editing, and the book itself is just bad.

Let's ignore the last point, because you won't have success in trade publishing if your book is just bad. Book covers and editing are things that people can actually control if you put in some effort and money. So, if you're willing to do it right, then why not do it?

RightHoJeeves said:

Let's ignore the last point, because you won't have success in trade publishing if your book is just bad.

Click to expand...

Let's not ignore it. If the book is just too bad for trade publishing, why on Earth would you want to self-publish it?

caw

blacbird said:

Let's not ignore it. If the book is just too bad for trade publishing, why on Earth would you want to self-publish it?

caw

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the point the poster was making. They were simply saying that a bad book will fail whether you self-publish it or try the agent and publisher route.

This. Oh, heavens, a thousand times this. Never mind all the established authors who 'get away' with commercially publishing stupid, badly-written books. The average new self-pub author HAS to present at least as good a product as his or her best commercial counterparts.

AW is filled with shining examples of self-published authors who took the time and effort to get it right. They are my heroes and inspirations.

Anything less is an insult to readers. Anything less comes right back to the reasons why self-publishing is still fighting remnants of the old stigma: badly-written and badly-edited books published too soon. My standards for self-published books are as high, if not higher than the ones I apply to commercial publishing.

Okay, Rwm answered me on that - bad books will fail, no matter how they're published. But with self-publishing, there is no agent or publisher acting as filter.

blacbird said:

Let's not ignore it. If the book is just too bad for trade publishing, why on Earth would you want to self-publish it?

caw

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to imply people should self publish awful books. I'm merely saying that an awful book will have no more chance of success in getting picked up by a trade publisher.

What I mean by "lets ignore it" is if you want to be successful in either trade or self publishing, having a quality book must be a given.

RightHoJeeves said:

Sorry, didn't mean to imply people should self publish awful books. I'm merely saying that an awful book will have no more chance of success in getting picked up by a trade publisher.

What I mean by "lets ignore it" is if you want to be successful in either trade or self publishing, having a quality book must be a given.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was quite sure that's what you meant, but the way it came out raised a flag. I've seen (I'm sure we've all seen) more than one whingeing comment about the horrors of trade publishing, how nobody understands or will accept my book, so I'm just going to self-publish it.

There are a lot of solid reasons to self-publish. Just because you can't get an acceptance at a standard agency or publisher isn't one of them.

caw

blacbird said:

There are a lot of solid reasons to self-publish. Just because you can't get an acceptance at a standard agency or publisher isn't one of them.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Apologies for flag raising.

JustSarah said:

Then can someone possibly explain why Bill Birnes (of UFO Hunters fame) said himself even Trade published authors have to truck a lot of self-promotion? I'm honestly curious here.

This is a Trade published author saying this.

Click to expand...

Well, any kind of promotion is good. If someone can sell 20K books on a self published platform, imagine what they could do with a major (or comitted minor) house behind them!

Conversely if the same (trade pubbed) author did nothing and left it to the house, I would imagine lost sales. And in publishing, the size of ones next advance is predicated on the success of your first book.So it would be in best interests to give it all you've got...

blacbird said:

Actually, I was quite sure that's what you meant, but the way it came out raised a flag. I've seen (I'm sure we've all seen) more than one whingeing comment about the horrors of trade publishing, how nobody understands or will accept my book, so I'm just going to self-publish it.

There are a lot of solid reasons to self-publish. Just because you can't get an acceptance at a standard agency or publisher isn't one of them.

caw

Click to expand...

I think the exception to this is if the book was rejected because of the marketability. Sometimes a book can be wonderfully written, but it's not the right timing or they think there won't be an audience for it.

blacbird said:

Actually, I was quite sure that's what you meant, but the way it came out raised a flag. I've seen (I'm sure we've all seen) more than one whingeing comment about the horrors of trade publishing, how nobody understands or will accept my book, so I'm just going to self-publish it.

There are a lot of solid reasons to self-publish. Just because you can't get an acceptance at a standard agency or publisher isn't one of them.

caw

Click to expand...

So, does "not getting accepted" always equal "bad" and does "getting accepted" always equal "good"?

My experience is pretty limited, admittedly, but what there is has sort of convinced me to that those things are not the case. Not because I want to make myself all Dr. Feelgood about my numerous rejections or anything, but because of what I saw as an intern, and what I've seen some friends go through, what I've read on agent blogs, etc. Sometimes it's not about good or bad, it's about niches and markets and hooks and dead genres...

...but then, I don't know how to define good or bad anyway. The only metric I have is whether or not I enjoyed the book.