10 Reasons You Should Skip Traditional Publishers

LostInWonderland said:

Although I don't agree with the article and find it to be extremely biased, it bothers me a little that if the title was "10 Reasons You Should Skip Self-publishing" probably very few would even bat an eye.

Click to expand...

If the article were as biased as the one linked to here, then I certainly would.

IMO, self-publishing has come a long way and has more advantages than it did in the past. More than commercial publishing? Eh, I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd venture to say they both have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on what the author wants to accomplish.

I'm of the mindset that there doesn't have to be a war between commercial publishing and self-publishing. I think there's enough space (especially cyberspace) for everyone. I don't get the ongoing arguments as to which is "better" when it all comes down to personal preference.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Neither trade nor self publication is flat-out right for everyone: each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and so much depends on the writer and the work concerned.

In the end, no matter who the publisher is, the readers will be the ones to decide what sells and what doesn't. A book can just as easily fail with a commercial publisher as it can with self-publishing, and same goes for success. It depends on the book, and it (sadly) depends on luck.

Click to expand...

Here I disagree with you. A book from a trade publisher has a much bigger chance of succeeding than a self-published book (if by succeeding you mean "selling in good quantity") because trade publishers on average put out a higher-quality package and reach more readers than most self-publishers manage. Otherwise, I'd say you're spot-on.

Deb Kinnard said:

Katrina, to each of your points I'll say: 't ain't always so.


Now, all that said -- no two writers' paths are the same, nor should they be. But to put one's entire faith in one path, in an industry that's changing so rapidly...

Let's just say it's not the path I've chosen, for many reasons. Your mileage, of course, may vary. I wish you all success no matter which way you travel.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to chime in and say I agree with you completely, right down to the part about how each writer has to decide what is right for them. I used to be all for traditional publishing, but after more than 100 rejection letters, I uploaded my book to Amazon a few years ago. At that point, I was still wishing for a traditional contract, but it didn't happen. Then my book started selling. A lot. I contacted a few agents, and still no interest despite extremely good sales. Then I became bitter and said to heck with them! Self-pub. All. The. Way.

But now I'm starting to hear about authors who do some books traditional and some self-pub. If you have that option, it sounds like a win/win deal. I don't have that option and I doubt I'll ever query an agent with the new book I'm writing that is not part of my series. I'll upload it myself because I have a small core of fans who say they'll buy it sight unseen. (and no, they aren't family.) and I think I can do well with it if I can write it the way I see it. That's a whole different topic though. If it doesn't come out the way I want it to, it wouldn't work for traditional publishers either.

Wow. You guys.

I mean, the list is ridiculous, but the amount of venom you're all spitting is kind of bouncing off the article and burning the skin off of every self-published author around you.

Kriven said:

Wow. You guys.

I mean, the list is ridiculous, but the amount of venom you're all spitting is kind of bouncing off the article and burning the skin off of every self-published author around you.

Click to expand...

Kriven, if you have something constructive to say then you're welcome to say it.

If you find any of the comments here offensive or inappropriate I'd be grateful if you'd report them so that I and the other mods can deal with them in an appropriate way.

However, instead of accusing people in general of spitting venom, and of "burning the skin off of every self-published author around you", I suggest that you make a specific, well-informed and appropriately-supported post, quoting and refuting the various comments you take exception to. It would be more effective, and much more constructive.

Thank you.

I'm not burning anyone's skin - more I am wishing that people wouldn't use self pub as an excuse to demonise other people who do not choose that path. That is - people trying to burn my skin off.

Self pub is a legit way to go - if you a) know why you are doing it and with reasons that make sense(sticking it to the man is probably not the best reason) b) you don't trash the thought of doing other wise. Each author needs to get the facts (not hyperbole/rhetoric, facts) and make up their own mind what is right for them

Because the only skin burning here is from that article.

And is it any wonder that people get fed up of being described as evil when they are trying to do the best job they can?

IdiotsRUs said:

I am wishing that people wouldn't use self pub as an excuse to demonise other people who do not choose that path. That is - people trying to burn my skin off.

Click to expand...

I understand that, which is why I kept my mouth shut for so much of this thread. But it just kept coming and coming. As Arhool said: "And the hits keep coming."

And, well, the hits started to hurt.

Old Hack said:

Here I disagree with you. A book from a trade publisher has a much bigger chance of succeeding than a self-published book (if by succeeding you mean "selling in good quantity") because trade publishers on average put out a higher-quality package and reach more readers than most self-publishers manage. Otherwise, I'd say you're spot-on.

Click to expand...

Not trying to start an argument, but I'm pretty sure I've read several times that many (if not most) authors don't earn out their advance. Maybe that's just first time authors, I can't recall, but still. Also, that's if the publisher even pays an advance, which seems to be becoming more of a rare occurrence nowadays.

I'm not saying self-publishing is a better choice for this reason, just wanted to clarify. It's also important to take into consideration the amount of authors who go the "traditional" route and never land an agent and/or publisher. This would leave said author with, pretty much, zero readers, compared to even the most unsuccessful self-published author who might manage to get a few nibbles.

Both options have their pros and cons, and neither is a guarantee for success. I think too many people unfortunately see self-publishing as some sort of get-rich-quick scheme (sadly, I've even seen "guides" about this very thing) and don't realize the amount of work and dedication that's involved. These types of articles tend to glamorize it, which only makes it worse.

As with just about anything in life, it's great to dream big but having realistic expectations is important too.

Kriven said:

I understand that, which is why I kept my mouth shut for so much of this thread. But it just kept coming and coming. As Arhool said: "And the hits keep coming."

And, well, the hits started to hurt.

Click to expand...

Kriven, I've just re-read this thread and I really didn't see anyone taking pokes at self-published writers.

I'm really sorry that you feel so unhappy about this, but I'm not convinced that people really are being as mean about self-published writers as you seem to think that they are. I don't mean to dismiss your feelings or concerns, but I just don't see it I'm afraid.

I'd love to be able to help you here, but am not sure I can. I hope you're ok, though. I really do. PM me if you'd like. OK?

IdiotsRUs said:

I'm not burning anyone's skin - more I am wishing that people wouldn't use self pub as an excuse to demonise other people who do not choose that path. That is - people trying to burn my skin off.

Self pub is a legit way to go - if you a) know why you are doing it and with reasons that make sense(sticking it to the man is probably not the best reason) b) you don't trash the thought of doing other wise. Each author needs to get the facts (not hyperbole/rhetoric, facts) and make up their own mind what is right for them

Because the only skin burning here is from that article.

And is it any wonder that people get fed up of being described as evil when they are trying to do the best job they can?

Click to expand...

I agree with you in sentiment, however, it applies to self-publishers too. We have been told, with a few exceptions, our work is garbage. But yeah, we are not supposed to be bitter. We are doing the best job that we can also, but it seems like everyone here is extremely biased against self-publishing. You (general AbsoluteWrite you, not you you) are no different than the guy who wrote the article, only the bias is against rather than for self-publishing.

Isn't it time to just concede that many self-published books are actually good?

I've read Hugh Howley's Wool (the Omnibus version) and it is excellent writing and it deserves all the praise it is receiving, but I have also read little known self-pubbed books that were just about as good. In fact, I'd have to say that this year, my reading list has been about 70% self-published books and not because I'm looking for them. I'm just finding books that are in genres I enjoy and have intriguing plotlines, so I buy them. I don't even pay attention anymore to whether they are self-pubbed or trade pubbed. A good book is a good book.

It isn't until I'm done reading them and think about leaving a review that I notice what route they went. As a self-pubbed author myself, I've stopped leaving reviews for self-pubbed books because everyone accuses us of leaving bogus reviews. So, despite the fact that I don't know most of the self-published authors whose books I've read, I don't want them to be tarnished with a review from another self-pubber.

I've read through the entire thread and I don't believe anyone has burned self-publishers - not Old Hack, not Uncle Jim, not Torgo, no one. And I'm one of those self-publishers (check out G.W. Ellis on Amazon, Smashwords, and B&N just to get in an obnoxious plug).

Honestly, the article sounds a lot like someone whose mindset is "commercial publishing is dead, run for the hills!" or "stop dead tree publishing, self-publish now!" rather than someone who has self-publisher's real interests at heart.

But people here burning self-publishers? That doesn't happen (often). There are too many of us here already.

Better to see one's work in decent print than letting it languish unseen in the drawer waiting for an acceptance from the "Big Six."

LostInWonderland said:

Not trying to start an argument, but I'm pretty sure I've read several times that many (if not most) authors don't earn out their advance. Maybe that's just first time authors, I can't recall, but still. Also, that's if the publisher even pays an advance, which seems to be becoming more of a rare occurrence nowadays.

Click to expand...

The last time I saw any reliable figures about this, they suggested that about 70% of authors did not earn out their advances. This doesn't mean that they or their books were failures: far more books than that make a profit for their publishers, and that means that they sell plenty of copies, and so are successes under the terms I suggested.

As far as I can tell, most of the good publishers still pay advances. The big six still do; the more established independent publishers do; several of the good e-publishers do too.

Tiny independent publishers don't pay advances, but they never have. They're proliferating at a rate of knots and failing just as fast: they skew the statistics, I think, and aren't places I'd advise writers to submit to.

I'm not saying self-publishing is a better choice for this reason, just wanted to clarify. It's also important to take into consideration the amount of authors who go the "traditional" route and never land an agent and/or publisher. This would leave said author with, pretty much, zero readers, compared to even the most unsuccessful self-published author who might manage to get a few nibbles.

Click to expand...

Most writers who try to find an agent and a trade publishing deal are going to fail in that endeavour. Most writers who self-pubilsh are going to fail to sell to anyone other than their family and friends.

I'm not sure that rejection by trade publishing implies that self-publishing is a better route to take.

Both options have their pros and cons, and neither is a guarantee for success. I think too many people unfortunately see self-publishing as some sort of get-rich-quick scheme (sadly, I've even seen "guides" about this very thing) and don't realize the amount of work and dedication that's involved. These types of articles tend to glamorize it, which only makes it worse.

As with just about anything in life, it's great to dream big but having realistic expectations is important too.

Click to expand...

Yep.

FOTSGreg said:

But people here burning self-publishers? That doesn't happen (often). There are too many of us here already.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not really likely here, given things like this.

MMcDonald64 said:

I agree with you in sentiment, however, it applies to self-publishers too. We have been told, with a few exceptions, our work is garbage. But yeah, we are not supposed to be bitter.

Click to expand...

I'm really sorry that you feel like this: but I'd like you to link to the comments where you've been told that your work is garbage, or where you've been told that all self-published books are poor. Really.

I've not read your books, so I don't know how good they are. I can't comment. But I have reviewed a few self-published books and most of them have been terrible. This is my direct experience.

We are doing the best job that we can also, but it seems like everyone here is extremely biased against self-publishing. You (general AbsoluteWrite you, not you you) are no different than the guy who wrote the article, only the bias is against rather than for self-publishing.

Click to expand...

Saying that many--or perhaps, most--self-published books are bad isn't being "is extremely biased against self-publishing"; it's being honest. Again, in my direct experience. It's not the same as that article, because that article is ill-informed and not representative of trade publishing. In my direct experience.

Isn't it time to just concede that many self-published books are actually good?

Click to expand...

I've never pretended otherwise, and neither have most of the people here (and anyone I see suggesting otherwise I do take task with). Many self-published books are bloody brilliant. But saying that doesn't change the fact that many, many more are dreadful.

I've stopped leaving reviews for self-pubbed books because everyone accuses us of leaving bogus reviews. So, despite the fact that I don't know most of the self-published authors whose books I've read, I don't want them to be tarnished with a review from another self-pubber.

Click to expand...

I think that's a big shame. And somewhat judgemental of you, too.

donroc said:

Better to see one's work in decent print than letting it languish unseen in the drawer waiting for an acceptance from the "Big Six."

Click to expand...

Donroc, I can sort-of see your point in saying that, but I know that you're a decent, kind person who is likely to see good in everyone, and I wonder if you've read much of the really bad self-published stuff that's out there. Much would be far better off never seeing the light of day, because it's dreadful. And I don't mean that on the level of needing editing: I mean it's rambling, incoherent, paranoid, or scary, and way beyond the point where a bit of an edit could save it.

Now. Let's not turn this into yet another mass-bicker about how self-published books are terrible and trade publishing is broken. That's getting so old now. Can we please talk about the realities of both options, and not resort to general trashing and rhetoric? Thank you.

MMcDonald64 said:

Isn't it time to just concede that many self-published books are actually good?

Click to expand...

I've never argued otherwise. In fact on multiple threads, I've commented how the first self-pubbed book I bought was an excellent book, a fun read and professional in every way.

If I offended anyone with my comments, I apologize. The intent of it was, "you have your reasons, I have mine." I'm not ashamed of the fact that I'm revising and resubmitting and letting some manuscripts go in the back drawer for now while trying to get that big "yes". I believe the end goal is worth it. And I don't deserve to be talked down to for that anymore than someone who takes the self-publication route. (Note: not saying anyone here has done that, just that self-pubbed authors aren't the only ones who have issues with people making sweeping generalizations about them.)

MMcDonald64 said:

Isn't it time to just concede that many self-published books are actually good?

Click to expand...

I'd say that many of the self pubbed books where the author has researched/worked/edited/worked again are good.

But there's a butt load out there where people haven't done that, but because of a lot of rhetoric in certain places, think that it should be up there with everything else

And I can understand that. Because I felt that way about my stuff a while ago - and if self pubbing had been as easy then I might have gone that way. And I'd have done myself and my stories a disservice. (Seriously, I look at a story I wrote then, and..okay, yes I am blushing, okay? And i couldn't understand why I couldn't get an agent...)

I think anyone who has researched and honed etc, and decides they want to self pub? Good for you, go for it. Love to know how it goes for you and I hope it goes well. But sadly, the vocal majority (on the net in general, not here) seem not to be that way - I have wrote a book! The Evuls will not publish it! That means everything publish must be shit/they are trying to keep a genius down! Makes the rest of the self pubbers look bad.


And you know, I bet it's wearing from both sides. Torgo, as he said earlier, could work as a shop assistant and get paid the same as he does now. He works as he does because he loves books. And to be told repeatedly he's Da Evul...(With even major news outlets getting in on the slamming now) the same way that good self pubbers must get fed up with being told what they are doing is garbage. I get fed up with it, and I'm not an editor or a self pubber! ETA: Ofc no, I'm a stupid pinhead because I signed a contract that I found favourable for what I wanted. ><


It seems that from the general internet, whatever you do is Evul, unless you're just slapping stuff up as fast as you can....

Le sigh.

I'm just pro whoever is putting in the work, thinking objectively as much as possible about the work and concentrating on a good bloody story without their ego or hyperbole getting in the way.

And that means self pubbers and editors and all sorts. But shit stirrers - and that is all it is, a lot of rhetoric with not much substance, to evoke a response - as in the original article? Not so much.

I think we can all live without them.

*raises a glass to all those good people so harassed*

MMcDonald64 said:

Isn't it time to just concede that many self-published books are actually good?

Click to expand...

Well, define "many." As a percentage? As an absolute number?

Nobody on AW says "All self-published books are crap."

Most of us who have actually tried reading some have concluded that most self-published books are crap.

And in my opinion, the few that aren't could probably have been commercially published if the author had been more patient (or willing) to go that route.

James D. Macdonald said:

Let's say that Amazon manages to break publishing with their predatory practices. What the practical effect will be is that talented newcomers, instead of finding readrs very, very difficult will find it nearly impossible. If ever the phrase "Don't quit your day job" was pertinent, self-publishing is the place.

Click to expand...

Dear sweet dogs and stars, this.

My issues stem from the fact that articles like that smack of DIY schemes that promise RICHES! SELF-RELIANCE! SUCCESS! without giving some cold hard facts or numbers.

I CAN DO IT! SO CAN YOU! ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS. INSTANT RICHES AND FAME AND TOTAL FREEDOM FROM OVERSIGHT! BE YOUR OWN BOSS!

When a self-published author tells me they had 10,000 downloads last month, clearly I'm supposed to be impressed. What they haven't told me, though, is how many of those were free. What they haven't told me was how many of those were sold at $0.99 and at the 35% royalty rate vs how many were at the $2.99/70% rate. That's far more impressive and valuable to me to show proof of success. Especially when I hear about people who are honest and say "I got 400 downloads on the first day of my free give away. They tapered off to nothing when I started charging." That's telling right there, mkay?

Their five-star ratings certainly aren't proof of that. Not from the behavior I have seen elsewhere by self-published authors.

I'm also afraid that crowing that trade published books also sport bad spelling/grammar/formatting issues isn't terribly impressive. No one disputes it, but from my own experiences the probability of me getting a poorly edited trade is vastly smaller than my getting a poorly edited self-pubbed. I can go to my kindle right now and pull up the last ten trades and the last ten self published purchases I've made in the past six months and show you how that bears out. One trade book in the past ten that I've published read was unreadable because the prose wasn't to my liking. All the editing appears fine.

Seven out of the past ten self-published books were unreadable due to grammar, spelling and editing!fail. That's not even taking into account the voice was appalling to try to muddle through due to the technical issues with the writing.

And here's the thing. There are some self-pubblished authors on this board who are clearly successful. They are hitting it hard every day and they have to do more than write their next book. They have to do it all and it's hard, hard work. Something articles like that tend to either gloss over or completely fail to mention.

Talk to any one of them on this board and they will pretty much tell you the same thing. They work hard for their success and I am thrilled they are doing as well as they are. It's success stories like that which convince me self-publishing has merit.

Not articles like this that try to sell me that self-publishing is the golden path to riches and total writing/publishing freedom. I feel like I'm watching an infomercial at 2 am.

IdiotsRUs said:

And that means self pubbers and editors and all sorts. But shit stirrers - and that is all it is, a lot of rhetoric with not much substance, to evoke a response - as in the original article? Not so much.

I think we can all live without them.

*raises a glass to all those good people so harassed*

Click to expand...

Cheers! (Mmm...Bailey's)

Kriven said:

Wow. You guys.

I mean, the list is ridiculous, but the amount of venom you're all spitting is kind of bouncing off the article and burning the skin off of every self-published author around you.

Click to expand...

Old Hack said:

Kriven, if you have something constructive to say then you're welcome to say it.

If you find any of the comments here offensive or inappropriate I'd be grateful if you'd report them so that I and the other mods can deal with them in an appropriate way.

However, instead of accusing people in general of spitting venom, and of "burning the skin off of every self-published author around you", I suggest that you make a specific, well-informed and appropriately-supported post, quoting and refuting the various comments you take exception to. It would be more effective, and much more constructive.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Srsly. Self publishing gets as much respect around here as does commercial/traditional/legacy/fill-in-the-blank publishing, when done correctly. When shenanigans are spotted on either side of the aisle, they're called out.

hen shenanigans are spotted on either side of the aisle, they're called out.

Click to expand...

Yup

and every/any side has its good guys (and those that pretend to be good guys) and the real good guys get weary of the shit

that's all that's been expressed here - people weary of being shit on. And that goes for every side too - we're all weary of being shiton

Editors for being evil people who like good books
Self pubbers for throwing out garbage
People who have signed with The Man for 'selling out' because that makes them stupid and slaves....

No one wins. At all. Except if they are doing what is right for them.

The internet shits on us all. And then in places (like this) you get a bit of perspective with luck. Or at least people don't shit on you.

Hence the whiskey.

Screw what 'they' say. Are you doing what is right for you? Yes? then do it. Do it hard.

That article was pretty stupid. I call 'em like I see 'em.

Please note, I'm not saying anybody who self publishes is stupid, or that self publishing itself is stupid, just that the article was.

I'm saying this as somebody who is gearing up to self publish. I've spent the last decade trying to break into the traditional publishing industry with no success. If it'd all been a sea of form rejection letters with ZERO positive feed back, I'd either keep trying or give up. But during that time I've gotten requests for partials, fulls, and once got so close that it hurt (the only reason I'm pretty sure I didn't get picked up was because they wanted me to change my super hero action into a love triangle romance. No, up yours. You don't want my book, you want an entirely different book.)

I've busted my butt on my writing and am not just rushing into this willy nilly without doing any research like a moron. I've thought long and hard about this, invested time and money on professional cover artists and editors. I'm doing my best to be a professional.

That all said, traditional publishers are still, on the whole, the better way to go if you can get them. There are instances of people only getting $2k advances and then never earning out, or having royalty checks bounce, or getting screwed over on e-book payments, but generally speaking, you'll reach a wider audience and make more money with the traditional folks.

Of COURSE there are indie/self pubbed authors who makes loads of money, but they are in the extreme minority. I'd be shocked if there were more than a couple thousand self-pubbed authors who made their living that way. And I'd be floored if there were more than a dozen who actually got RICH off it. Even the hyper-successful self-pubbed folks make significantly LESS than the second or third tier traditionally published people. Amanda Hocking, the golden girl of self-publishing, made something like several hundred thousand to over a million dollars in her highest selling month. Somebody like Stephenie Meyer probably makes at least that much on her worst month. Now, Hocking is selling a lot more now, but now she's also traditionally published, so bear that in mind.

The reasons in the article aren't ENTIRELY false, but they're presented as universal facts, and they simply aren't.

Old Hack said:

A book from a trade publisher has a much bigger chance of succeeding than a self-published book (if by succeeding you mean "selling in good quantity") because trade publishers on average put out a higher-quality package and reach more readers than most self-publishers manage.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, and then there's that minor issue about how commercial bookstores generally won't touch a self-pubbed book.

caw

blacbird said:

Well, yeah, and then there's that minor issue about how commercial bookstores generally won't touch a self-pubbed book.

caw

Click to expand...

Well, the article is about self-publishing ebooks, so this doesn't really apply