The New Never-Ending PublishAmerica Thread (NEPAT)

I'm not really worried about what PA might do. I'm worried about what the writing community at large will do. Having a bad reputation because of lying to a company--even PA--worries me.

Which is strange, because at the time I signed with them, I wasn't worried in the least bit about this stuff. I was just excited to have been offered a contract by anyone. I think that's what blinded my sense of honesty in the beginning. It's not to say I was right in doing what I did, but it's simply meant as a way of understanding why I did what I did.

[Nexusman]

Are more than 17,000 writers wrong?

Numbers are NOT RELEVANT. If one person says something wrong, that person is wrong. However, if 100, or 1,000, or 17,000 say it, then they are assumed right strictly through their numbers. It doesn't matter if a billion people disagree, but facts are facts, A is A, and things are what they are. This also applies to PublishAmerica.

Enough objectivism from me for now.

-Nick

[Sheryl Nantus]

The Church of Scientology has lots more members.

doesn't make them right either.

[akaa1a]

http://bb.publishamerica.com/viewtopic.php?t=11321I think the "old" members she references must be the ones from 6 months ago. PA bans anyone else.

The poster should be relieved that we "old ones" who reside in the Village of the Banned aren't anywhere close to being able to post over there....cuz if we could, PA might spontaneously combust into a big pile of goo!
SPLAT!!!

[Christine N.]

Personal to Carl....

I think those questioning Publish America’s right to run their business as they see fit seem to retain selective sovereignty over what they allow as the purest method of publishing and what is not, an exercise in allegorical interpretation—believing in what one wishes, not what is.

We have no problem with PA running its business as it sees fit. We just want them to be honest and upfront about what they with their authors/customers. They lie. End of story. They also treat their authors, their source of income, with the utmost disdain. Just because you never received a 'tone' letter, or have been chastised by PA, doesn't mean they don't do it.

That you align yourself with a company that does these things speaks to your character. Is calling yourself a 'published author' worth it?

The fact is (and you seem to know this as well as anyone) that many PA authors indeed wouldn't be published by traditional houses with their manuscripts the way they submitted them. Reread that last statement. With guidance and effort learning their craft, quite a few of them COULD have been published. Some might never have, that's the way the numbers work in this business.

Ask yourself this - how did Saundra Julian speak of PA when you first came on the boards? How does she think of them now? Why do you think that is? And don't give me that crap about "oh, she wanted fortune and fame and didn't want to work for it" because we all know that's not true. I only mention her because she is the most recent person in your time to leave PA, and NOT happily.

You're gonna believe what you want, and spin things the way you want, but it doesn't make what you believe true. Facts, provable facts, are the truth - everything else is just opinion.

FACT: PA does NOT put its books in bookstores through its own efforts
FACT: PA prices its books at least $5 above commercial publisher's books, making them unattractive to buyers who have little money to spend on entertainment (remember, it's our business, it's THEIR entertainment)
FACT: PA sends out snotty, snarky, unprofessional letters to people who question their business practices.
FACT: PA has lied, in public, about at least one of their former authors and has sent police to another author's house in an attempt to frighten them.
FACT: PA does not vet its submissions, but takes everything that comes in before their quota was met for the day (or if comes from an author who didn't buy enough of their books the last time around)
FACT: PA has stated that they've paid over 1 mil in royalties. That works out to less than $100 per author.
FACT: Many PA books have never sold a copy. Larry Clopper said as much.
FACT: Industry professionals do not see a PA book as a publishing credit. (Contests are a different story - they probably see PA as vanity or self-publishing)
FACT: Chain bookstores, as a general policy, state that they do NOT stock POD books in their stores, therefore, the other FACT that I stated earlier (about not placing books on shelves) is proven twice.

Therefore: PA is NOT a commercial publisher, but a POD press who sells mainly to their own authors.

[Saundra Julian]

OMG, it's like Chinese water torture to read that disgusting post!

Drip, drip, drip...and what the hell is all that suppose to mean?

I wish Jim wouldn't bother with that side-show debate... and I thought it was suppose to be a "one on one", so how did that obscenity get posted and why was it allowed to remain on the board?

Sounds like they're ganging up on Jim...
Not very nice, Shelagh, but then all you want is the attention, right?

[Christine N.]

Ok, I'll bite on this one too....

I don’t care for the anti-PA published authors; they have their reward. I care for the unpublished, whom are merely pawns in a fruitless struggle. What a remarkable illustration of self-inflicted poverty, knowing it possible to hold one’s life quest, bound in hand, but opting instead for the wrapping.

This chaps my backside to no end. You act as if being published is a RIGHT, as if everyone who puts pen to paper is entitled to see their work in print for public consumption. I grant you, that if someone writes a book (or poetry, or anything) and they want a bound copy, and copies for friends and family, that's their right to do so.

But not every book that is written is fit for public consumption. Sorry, but that's the real world. Would you say that everyone who wants to be a doctor has the right to do so? Or that every artist/actor/dancer has is ENTITLED to be on Broadway or in a big Hollywood movie? There are hobby outlets for all of those artsy occupations, just as writers can also be hobbyist. Those are NOT published authors, but people who do it for a hobby, who enjoy the work and don't care if the world falls at their feet, or if anyone reads their work.

YOU WANT people to read your work, you have some idea that because you wrote it, it MUST be good enough.

Because PA told you so. So yes, some may have a fruitless struggle. Not to be mean, but welcome to life in the real world.

You guys are right. I shouldn't worry about what I did two-and-a-half years ago. What's done is done; I can't change it.

However, I do apologize for having lied to the said company--even though it is PublishAmerica, what I did was still wrong--and I hope you'll all be willing to forgive me for it.


In the mean time, I won't worry about it further. I don't imagine PA will do much about it, and whatever the writing community does, it does.

At least I made known what I did, and I finally got two-and-a-half years' worth of worry off my chest.


Thanks, everyone.

[xhouseboy]

Originally Posted by SeanDSchaffer

However, I do apologize for having lied to the said company--even though it is PublishAmerica, what I did was still wrong--and I hope you'll all be willing to forgive me for it.

I forgive you.

Seriously, you're worrying over nothing, Sean.

You should take a stroll through my conscience.

Let s/he who has never blipped cast the first stone.

[bloemmarc]

Ok, I don't remember the name of this paticular book, but I honestly did find a few copies of a publisher america book on the shelves in my local waldens bookstore

[Tilly]

Originally Posted by PA board

Another very important thing for authors to keep in mind is that most retailers and distributors have contracts that allow 30, 60 or 90 days to pay for the order. Authors are paid on books when PA has received payment.

My understanding is that, although that would be true with other publishers, PA books aren't printed until they are ordered and paid for. Would PA ever be in a position of waiting up to 90 days for payment?

[Tilly]

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

Ok, I don't remember the name of this paticular book, but I honestly did find a few copies of a publisher america book on the shelves in my local waldens bookstore

Authors sometimes succeed in getting their local book shops to stock their book. This is completely as a result of the author's efforts, and frequently the books are there on consignment.

PA doesn't market to retailers, and its policies mean that no PA book has had widespread or national distribution.

[Christine N.]

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

Ok, I don't remember the name of this paticular book, but I honestly did find a few copies of a publisher america book on the shelves in my local waldens bookstore

And you can bet that PA had NOTHING to do with getting it there - the author did. Jean Marie managed to get her book stocked in Borders, and she did ALL the work herself.

PA does NOT, through its own efforts, get its books stocked on bookshelves in ANY bookstore.

[bloemmarc]

I see
All I know isd though, the manager told me that waldens is a corporate chain bookstore, and that they need the permission from their headquarters first before they stack any books written from local authors, or such.

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

Ok, I don't remember the name of this paticular book, but I honestly did find a few copies of a publisher america book on the shelves in my local waldens bookstore

I'd have to agree with the others who've posted concerning this. With every PA'er I've known, the work of getting books into bookstores has been exclusively the author's doing, never PA's.

I got my book into one store, and to my knowledge, it's the only brick-and-mortar store that ever carried my book.

[Tilly]

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

I see
All I know isd though, the manager told me that waldens is a corporate chain bookstore, and that they need the permission from their headquarters first before they stack any books written from local authors, or such.

That sounds like the kind local manager checked it was okay with head office to stock the book in the store. But that doesn't mean the book will be stocked in other stores.

[astonwest]

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

...the manager told me that waldens is a corporate chain bookstore, and that they need the permission from their headquarters first before they stack any books written from local authors, or such.

Maybe the author left them on the stacks...

That being said, if the book had stock in the Ingram system (if the book is old enough, it might have had some at the time), then the manager could have ordered those copies in. That was how my book ended up with more than 20 copies in a Waldenbooks...before they closed the store down a while later.

Did the book have a publication (or copyright) date inside?

[mreddin]

Forgive me for any errors in my fallacy identification, feel free to PM me with corrections or suggestions. My intention is to explain to PA lurkers reading Carl's post lacks substance in the face of evidence and why.

Originally Posted by Carl Baxter

Can it be said that belief in the purpose of Publish America is nothing more than a blind commitment of the will?

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

Who actually stated that PublishAmerica is nothing more than a blind commitement to will? It is not part of the "Great Debate", nor has it been part of the NEPAT thread. While some here at AW and other websites have likened PA to a cult, the references are to the seemingly blind defense of the organization in spite of unflattering evidence. Carl has chosen very emotive wording to sway the reader, but the "detractors" of PA never actually made this claim, but Carl wants you to think they did.

Are more than 17,000 writers wrong?

Logical Fallacy: Ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)

The idea that a large group of individuals cannot be mistaken in their thinking has been disproven many times. This argument is legion when discussing religion and the existince of god. Numerical superiority is not equivelent to correctness. Carl also takes the liberty in presuming that all 17,000 authors support his argument. They most certainly do not, if the folks at AW are representative.

The denial of PA as being good for authors of the world has less to do with facts and more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude. It is not the absence of evidence, but rather the suppression of it.

Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem or Poisoning the Well

Carl chooses to attack PA detractors by presuming they're prejudiced. This apparently alleviates his burden of responsibility in showing that PA's detractors are in fact incorrect. While a detractor might be biased in their opinion of PA, this does not eliminate the facts of the detractors claim. Carl hopes you'll forget about the publication and discussion of these facts by prejudicing the reader. The fact that some of the detractors are prejudiced is irrelvant in the debate.

Of all the enterprises in which the human heart engages, none but religion lends itself more to abuse and manipulation than the activity of writing for publication—acceptance—validation.

How succinct. I am personally inclined to agree with this statement. However, it comes across as an "Appeal to Emotion", implying indirectly
that PublishAmerica equates with acceptance and validation. Herein
lies the heart of the dilemna and debate. If PublishAmerica indeed accepts
anything within the day's quota, are the feelings of acceptance and
validation, valid? Carl makes no attempt to elucidate his rationale here.

Publish America antagonists cannot control their rage demanding a sign that PA justify its business model but to PA’s credit rabid zealots are countered with quiet solitude.

Logical Fallacy: "Poisoning the Well" or Ad Hominem
Appeal to Ridicule
Red Herring
Appeal to Spite

Carl uses emotionally manipulative and derisive words to make PA detractors look bad. This technique is used in absence of an actual logical argument. By ridiculing his opponents, Carl hopes to invalidate their claims. As opposed to actually presenting evidence to do the job. Carl also mentions opponents desire to "justify its business model" which is neither part of the ongoing debate, nor has been mentioned by any of the known PA opponents. Carl is trying to divert your attention away from the real debate, and that is identifying whether or not PA can rightfully claim to be a "traditional publisher, that is not in any way a POD or vanity press." Furthermore, we ask if PA's business model is based on getting authors to buy their own books.

I think those questioning Publish America’s right to run their business as they see fit seem to retain selective sovereignty over what they allow as the purest method of publishing and what is not, an exercise in allegorical interpretation—believing in what one wishes, not what is.

This might be another "Red Herring", and another backhanded Ad Hominem for good measure. I'm not sure where "selective sovereignty" comes into the picture or who Carl is even referring to at this point.

This might also be the classic "Straw Man" fallacy, because PA detractors have in fact, made similar claims. Carl has turned that argument around by phrasing it using his own words, then attacking it. The difference here is that the detractors present evidence to support their claims, Carl does not.

I don’t care for the anti-PA published authors; they have their reward. I care for the unpublished, whom are merely pawns in a fruitless struggle. What a remarkable illustration of self-inflicted poverty, knowing it possible to hold one’s life quest, bound in hand, but opting instead for the wrapping.

Carl is an excellent emotive writer, but there is no meaning behind his words. Who are the unpublished pawns and who is using them? I presume that Carl is referring to the big publishing houses and people like Jim McDonald, but who knows? Who is illustrating self-inflicted poverty and what does it have to do specifically with the debate being held? This strikes me as "Appeal to Fear", implying the PublishAmerica is the only hope for the outright survival of would-be authors. This may be the greatest fallacy of them all. The entire purpose of NEPAT is to warn these same individuals that PA is a threat to their financial wellbeing through their misleading website and emails encouraging their authors to buy large quantities of their own books, at inflated prices, that cannot be reasonably sold to the trade market. Additionally, PublishAmerica encourages its authors to spend money on promotions, which are likely to fail due to the problems we've outlined many times in NEPAT and through other venues.

PublishAmerica's books that are priced outside the market. The books are poorly discounted, poorly edited, poorly designed and not available in most bookstores. When you weigh these factors together, you cannot justify authors spending their money on lavish promotions or buying batches of their own books for resale. This is the heart of our argument and Carl has not offered any refutation of these statements.

PS: The existence of logical fallacies does not mean that Carl is wrong.
However, it does demonstrate that he has not presented an
argument that can be validated or debated. He may well be
correct, but he needs to present us with concrete facts and
he may well do so at a later time.

Regards,

Mike

[Tilly]

Originally Posted by astonwest

Maybe the author left them on the stacks...

That being said, if the book had stock in the Ingram system (if the book is old enough, it might have had some at the time), then the manager could have ordered those copies in. That was how my book ended up with more than 20 copies in a Waldenbooks...before they closed the store down a while later.

Did the book have a publication (or copyright) date inside?

Would that be possible now PA has dropped its discount to 5%?

Originally Posted by bloemmarc

I see
All I know isd though, the manager told me that waldens is a corporate chain bookstore, and that they need the permission from their headquarters first before they stack any books written from local authors, or such.

This is true, bloemmarc. However, this can be done by authors contacting the bookstore through the proper channels, not just the publisher doing so. For instance, B&N, I think it is, has a policy of sending two physical copies of a book to their corporate offices and a written request asking to stock that book, before they will decide whether or not to stock the book physically.

The reason for this, if I'm not mistaken, is to allow self-pubbed and vanity pubbed authors the ability to sell their books in several of the large chains.

But again, this is done through a written request sent to the proper channels. Most of the PA authors I've known over the years, have tried (and failed) to get this same thing done by simply going in to the stores themselves and asking.

But the point I'm making, is that the authors are responsible for getting their books into brick-and-mortar stores. PA itself does not do this for their authors.

[Christine N.]

For the record, Walden's is owned by Borders... and it's already been proven that Borders is an easier nut to crack than B&N when it comes to getting books by local author's stocked there.

And every region is different. Some regional managers are a little more lenient, some have little to no tolerance.

[astonwest]

Originally Posted by Tilly

Would that be possible now PA has dropped discount to 5%?

I was running on the theory that the book was actually old enough (and ordered long enough ago) that it had been ordered via Ingram stock and with the larger version of the short discount.

A local Borders store still has 2-3 (signed) copies of my book on their shelf from a signing I did roughly 2-3 years ago. It probably doesn't help them out that I tell people not to pay that much for them when I can give them a copy for free.

[Ilovepensandpaper]

Originally Posted by mreddin

Forgive me for any errors in my fallacy identification, feel free to PM me with corrections or suggestions. My intention is to explain to PA lurkers reading Carl's post lacks substance in the face of evidence and why.



Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

Who actually stated that PublishAmerica is nothing more than a blind commitement to will? It is not part of the "Great Debate", nor has it been part of the NEPAT thread. While some here at AW and other websites have likened PA to a cult, the references are to the seemingly blind defense of the organization in spite of unflattering evidence. Carl has chosen very emotive wording to sway the reader, but the "detractors" of PA never actually made this claim, but Carl wants you to think they did.



Logical Fallacy: Ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)

The idea that a large group of individuals cannot be mistaken in their thinking has been disproven many times. This argument is legion when discussing religion and the existince of god. Numerical superiority is not equivelent to correctness. Carl also takes the liberty in presuming that all 17,000 authors support his argument. They most certainly do not, if the folks at AW are representative.



Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem or Poisoning the Well

Carl chooses to attack PA detractors by presuming their prejudiced. This apparently alleviates his burden of responsibility in showing that PA's detractors are in fact incorrect. While a detractor might be biased in their opinion of PA, this does not eliminate the facts of the detractors claim. Carl hopes you'll forget about the publication and discussion of these facts by prejudicing the reader. The fact that some of the detractors are prejudiced is irrelvant in the debate.



How succinct. I am personally inclined to agree with this statement. However, it comes across as an "Appeal to Emotion", implying indirectly
that PublishAmerica equates with acceptance and validation. Herein
lies the heart of the dilemna and debate. If PublishAmerica indeed accepts
anything within the day's quota, are the feelings of acceptance and
validation, valid? Carl makes no attempt to elucidate his rationale here.



Logical Fallacy: "Poisoning the Well" or Ad Hominem
Appeal to Ridicule
Red Herring
Appeal to Spite

Carl uses emotionally manipulative and derisive words to make PA detractors look bad. This technique is used in absence of an actual logical argument. By ridiculing his opponents, Carl hopes to invalidate their claims. As opposed to actually presenting evidence to do the job. Carl also mentions opponents desire to "justify its business model" which is neither part of the ongoing debate, nor has been mentioned by any of the known PA opponents. Carl is trying to divert your attention away from the real debate, and that is identifying whether or not PA can rightfully claim to be a "traditional publisher, that is not in any way a POD or vanity press." Furthermore, we ask if PA's business model is based on getting authors to buy their own books.



This might be another "Red Herring", and another backhanded Ad Hominem for good measure. I'm not sure where "selective sovereignty" comes into the picture or who Carl is even referring to at this point.

This might also be the classic "Straw Man" fallacy, because PA detractors have in fact, made similar claims. Carl has turned that argument around by phrasing it using his own words, then attacking it. The difference here is that the detractors present evidence to support their claims, Carl does not.



Carl is an excellent emotive writer, but there is no meaning behind his words. Who are the unpublished pawns and who is using them? I presume that Carl is referring to the big publishing houses and people like Jim McDonald, but who knows? Who is illustrating self-inflicted poverty and what does it have to do specifically with the debate being held? This strikes me as "Appeal to Fear", implying the PublishAmerica is the only hope for the outright survival of would-be authors. This may be the greatest fallacy of them all. The entire purpose of NEPAT is to warn these same individuals that PA is a threat to their financial wellbeing through their misleading website and emails encouraging their authors to buy large quantities of their own books, at inflated prices, that cannot be reasonably sold to the trade market. Additionally, PublishAmerica encourages its authors to spend money on promotions, which are likely to fail due to the problems we've outlined many times in NEPAT and through other venues.

PublishAmerica's books that are priced outside the market. The books are poorly discounted, poorly edited, poorly designed and not available in most bookstores. When you weigh these factors together, you cannot justify authors spending their money on lavish promotions or buying batches of their own books for resale. This is the heart of our argument and Carl has not offered any refutation of these statements.


Regards,

Mike

Mreddin,
Thank goodness you took the time to explain, or pick apart Carl's message. I am not exactly the greatest in terms of vocabulary. I guess that is how some people are conned...Anyway, thanks for breaking down the message. The wording was a little over my head, and I got irritated with it.

[Nexusman]

Originally Posted by Ilovepensandpaper

Mreddin,
Thank goodness you took the time to explain, or pick apart Carl's message. I am not exactly the greatest in terms of vocabulary. I guess that is how some people are conned...Anyway, thanks for breaking down the message. The wording was a little over my head, and I got irritated with it.

It's basically a snow job: stretch a thin bit of substance into more words than it needs to be by unnecessary elegance. (Check c-span or any episode of Seinfeld for common examples...)

Also if he thinks he's including ME in his statement about unpublished authors, he is sadly mistaken.

-Nick

It might help some people who are about to sign, not to sign. And it might help some people who are already signed with PA, to realize what their publisher is doing to them. The more people there are who realize that they've been shafted, the more chances there are of people bringing the truth out about this company and their business practices.

I know it seems a bit insulting, Ilovepensandpaper....and possibly a tad ridiculous....but I think it's something well worth the effort in the long run. As a PA'er myself, I don't want others to go through what I'm going through now, for example. I know you don't, because of what you've already done to hinder their progress. A lot of other PA'ers also want to make sure as few people as possible go through what they've gone through, as well. So the debate definitely has the potential of being a compliment to the goal of a great many writers to be published and make successful careers out of their writing, by keeping them away from PA's clutches, and possibly other like scams.


I hope this helps you out, and although it seems pointless, try to remember that scams like PA don't last forever. I don't know when they'll go down, but they will go down. There are just too many good people in the world who want to see others succeed, for a company like PA to continue with their bad business practices.