Young Writers Society

I'm going to be talking about several things that I think make us all a bit uncomfortable: the publishing industry, self-publication, and e-books. I got stirred off in this direction because of a blog post by a great, up-and-coming writer I've been following on Twitter and talking with lately. He references this Huffington Post article, and I also read the second part to that article.

All of this got me thinking. My thoughts are really disorganized in my head, though, so I'll try to be as clear as possible in this post. @_@

So! First. The publishing industry. The huffington post articles goes into detail about how the publishing companies are declining, having money issues, and are not at all like how they started. Publishing companies now control the flow of our book media. They bet on "celebrity best seller life rafts". Essentially, it goes like this: Hey! Vampires! Those are selling. Do we have any vampire novels out there? Publish those! Nothing else! Vampires!! - You get my point. Basically, they want what sells, not what is necessarily good writing. But... isn't that what we're all trying to do here? Write better? And yet, in the long run, if the publishing industry continues as it does, being able to just write well doesn't mean you'll be able to get published. If your novel isn't about vampires, or space monkeys, or anthrax - whatever the current trend is - they're not going to expect you to sell and they're not going to accept you. Isn't there something wrong about that? We don't want to write what sells just to get published, do we? (That's the idea of "sell outs")

So, I can move to my next topic. Why is self-publishing so evil? I can freely admit (as I did in my comment to the blog post above) that I've frequently assumed that self-publishing is a kind of special hell reserved to selfish people who just want to see their books in print to share with their family/the few friends who are willing to buy the typo-riddled thing. (This is disregarding the other places where it is useful: YWS Lit journal, books published by professors for their class, specializations etc. I'm only talking about authors of novels.)

I got this kind of idea about self publishing because I've so frequently ran into people on here and other sites (no insult meant to anyone! I'm generalizing) who come on and brag about getting published, post a little of their work, and the minute they don't like the reviews they're receiving because they're not full blown compliments, they fall back on, "I'm published! See!" - but it's always been self publication. So I've only seen it as a bad thing for novels. I mean, that's why people call it "vanity" publishing.

But the blog my friend posted got me thinking a lot. He mentioned indie films. I, for one, love independent films. Once I found the IFC channel and realized that not all movies went to theaters, I found a whole new, beautiful world. I started to get irritated at the way big movie companies/producers control what was a "good" movie, and luckily, certain indie films break out into the main stream - but only if they're successful in the indie film world (Sundance, Cannes). But some of the most artful, beautiful films get ignored because those people believe they won't make the buck. That's where indie films come in.

So why can't self-published books be the indie genre of the book world? Why do I feel like all self-published authors can't write worth snot and just got tired of rejection letters, or never tried in the first place?

But like I mentioned above, it's not really that they got rejected for being bad writers, they got rejected because those high up people thought there was no way it would sell. My friend with the blog post is going to be sending his novel through the self-publishing world. I read all three of his (online posted) chapters today. I couldn't put it down. It was brilliant. But it probably wouldn't get picked up because, based on genre standards these days, they wouldn't think it would sell. I would buy his book and make everyone I know read it - based just on what I read today. He says on his blog, "Let’s prove to the world that we don’t need big publishers and profit driven networks to get our hands on some awesome science fiction!" (link)

So, why don't more of us work out novels to what perfection we can, via beta readers, and self-publish? Even in the main publishing world, if we could bust past the editors, seem like we're sellable... They're not going to promote our book for us, we're not Stephen-Freaking-King. We would have to go out there, do book signings, book tours, use word of mouth, the internet, whatever we can to get our books noticed. On our own. And then our books might just fall to the way side anyway.

(Note: I also read on another blog that a good agent should help you promote your book. But, the blogger was writing that because she had a friend whose agent wasn't doing that, and as my friend's blog post demonstrated, they're cutting author promotion because it's just not in the budget anymore.)

Why go through all that hell when you can self-publish? Self promote yourself, which, with the current social media, wouldn't be hard. Sure, you might not get as wide spread as a best seller. But who says you'll do that in mainstream publishing either? And is being a best seller that important? (Okay, yes, yes it is. But baby steps first! Let's get our name out there...)

So, what are your thoughts on all of this? Is self-publishing still an evil, poorly used beast? Is main stream publication the only way to go?

And yeah I was going to talk about e-books but this is just too long. So expect another rant on ebooks some time later... Oh, and I wasn't certain where to put it, so I lounged it! ^^; I like this more than my blog, too. I hope that wasn't too much babbling!

Edit: Ironically enough, my friend just added another blog post early this morning about the e-pub revolution and marketing yourself as an author. Argues a lot of good points for self publishing.

Interesting post!

I think, in a way, traditional publishing is the area that's really lagging and still carries so much stigma.

I mean, we don't look down on a band that self-produces their own records, and there are still indie musicians out there that build up their own following before they're picked up by more mainstream labels (Owl City being one example) although in other countries indie labels are still much more prevalent and indie bands still regularly hit the charts.

It's sort of seen that if you don't go down the traditional publishing route, you're not a 'real' writer, which not only seems unfair but also gives publishing companies a lot more power. There's a sci-fi author my dad really likes, I'm kicking myself because I can't for the life of me remember his name, but his first novel was self-published and self-promoted, and it's actually a really good read.

What really makes it a lot clearer for me is comics. I love comics, but I'm not a DC/Marvel fan, and there's usually little else in book stores around here. When I web-comic I follow decides to self-publish a book, I get excited! I want to buy it! I'll usually fork out extra for a signed copy with a personal little doodle too! It doesn't matter to me in the slightest that it's self-published.

I don't really see why books shouldn't give people the same excitement. Self-published artists, musicians, film-makers, and even game developers are often praised for not going the mainstream route, whereas writers seem more to be ridiculed for it.

A semi-related blog post.

I think part of the publishing industry is also bookstores. Most of us go to bookstores to find books or authors we like, and it becomes the only thing that comes to mind when you think of where your book will be.

However, self-publishing as a concept is smart. If you can prove it can sell through self-publishing, then publishing companies see you're not as great a risk as somebody else who hasn't self-published.

The only thing is, you really need beta-readers, lol. You'd need a base similar to YWS in order to get the feedback needed to make it a book writers won't rip to shreds.

Good Post!

I'm not quite sure what I think, actually. I don't really self publishing as an 'evil' but I don't really think it's a good route for most authors to take. Even though mainstream publication is a lot harder, I think it has the most payoffs; the fees you have to pay are limited, more people will buy and see your book, etc. You'd also have an agent/editor with whom to discuss and look over and discuss your writing with you. I guess self-publishing can be a temptation that you shouldn't reach for, like the apple in the garden of eden. Good things come to those who wait, I guess.

I think that self-publishing just has that stigma--you printed it yourself because it sucks too much to get it published via a real publisher.

Even though mainstream publication is a lot harder, I think it has the most payoffs

I'm certainly not going to try and argue about this because that would be silly, and I can see both sides of the argument and the value/disadvantage of both sides. Nor am I saying you didn't read the whole thing I wrote. xD But do you really think that having to work "harder" to get published is worth it? Especially considering (taking the view I explained in the original post) the reason one is being rejected is more in relation with whether or not the book will sell on the market, rather than whether or not it is a well written, well constructed book?

I know there are cases where the well written books do sell and do get accepted, of course, and I'm not saying that "not selling" is the only reason someone would get rejected. But it has to be a consideration, right?

I think that self-publishing just has that stigma--you printed it yourself because it sucks too much to get it published via a real publisher.

I wonder if there would be anyway we could break the stigma? Like Tin Fish pointed out, a lot of comic book authors, musicians, film makers go independent, and it's praised. You step into that with writing, and people hate you or think you're full of yourself. Is it not as honorable to be a self promoted "authorpreneur" (A phrase my friend made up for entrepreneuring author. xD)? Shouldn't there be some wow-ness associetied to the fact that this person spend so many years editing with beta readers, so many years working, marketed himself, put it together...etc etc.

Of course, you can't tell that from looking at a self printed book. And this is where the stigma is hardest to break.

I'm mostly asking this questions because I'd really love to see more people discussing this. I'm so fascinated by it. >_>

There are some problems I have with this article. While self-publishing should certainly be considered as a possible route to publication, it's still the least desirable. However, before I go further, I do want to say thank you to Suzanne for starting this conversation and for putting together a well-written article. I just think the sources are wrong.

First, the publishing companies aren't declining. What that HuffPo post is talking about is mainly the decline of their influence, which is very different from a decline in revenue. The only part of the article that does mention revenue is a quote from the CEO of Random House in January 2009, which is very misleading. You could quote any CEO from January 2009 and write an article about how that particular industry was in decline. January 2009 was in the middle of the worst recession in over 50 years, so quoting a CEO at that time to show how an industry is in decline is very misleading. In fact, here's a good report about the growth of the publishing industry. Its sales declined by only 1.8% in 2009. Compare that to the GDP of the USA, which declined by 2.4%.

And what is this about publishing companies only going for vampire titles or celebrity titles? This seems more like an excuse of why someone's book wasn't accepted than an explanation of why self-publishing is better. Common sense just says walk into any bookstore and look at the new books in the front; very few (if any!) are vampire or celebrity lit.


Now, the reason self-publishing can never achieve the status of Indie films is money. Even with the falling cost of equipment, it still costs thousands of dollars to create a film even by yourself (computer, computer programs, camcorder, etc). To create the ones like you see on IFC, it takes at least tens of thousands of dollars and very often quite a bit more. So to create a good independent film, you still need some way to finance it.

That's not true for self-publishing. All I need to get my book sold on Amazon is about $150. Even if you include the cost of the computer, it's still under $500 total because I can buy a cheap netbook to write my novel with. Independent films are rare compared to self-published titles because of the differences in money involved. Everyone can afford to publish a novel; not everyone can afford to make a film. Then there's the entire issue of venture capitalists. VCs routinely invest in independent films, and such people have a lot of good advice and connections. But there are no VCs who are going to invest in a self-published title.

So the self-publishing world is never going to be like the indie film community. The barriers to entry and transaction costs are just too low.

But that's not to say self-publishing still isn't a possible route. Some people have found success with it, but the book has to be really good and you have to have the remarkable ability to market yourself. So you should only go with self-publishing once the traditional route of getting an agent then a publisher fails you. And if that first route does fail you, you're going to have to ask yourself honestly and sincerely if what you wrote is any good.

In the end, though, this article and the sources are correct in saying that self-publishing shouldn't be viewed as a stigma. As I said, some have found success with it and I also do happen to believe that self-publishing will look better and better as time goes on once this industry matures. But the publishing companies aren't going anywhere, they're not like Hollywood, and they should be viewed as allies rather than enemies.

Thanks for the comment's Nate! I will freely admit I don't understand all the publishing-companies-declining thing. What I really meant by it comes more from the fact that I've heard they're not putting so much money into marketing new authors because of budget cuts, I think. Or maybe I didn't, haha, but your corrections are lovely!

And I completely understand how $150 would not make a good book. More often than not, it won't! But I've been reading even more into self publishing just out of pure curiosity, and the best articles suggest spending much more than that. Freelance editors, designers, copy-editors. You'd be lucky if you had friends in these places, but even then, how are you going to accommodate them for the time they've spent? Truly producing a good book via self publishing will take lots of money unless you're lucky enough to get charity, because everything that a publishing company generally pays for, you have to pay for. If you want to do it right, that could run up to $1,000 quickly. It makes self publishing a lot more dangerous, but like any business you have to spend that kind of money to make money. If you don't want people immediately thinking you've self published this, you need your book to look and feel like it's legit.

And I would probably not consider self publishing unless I got rejected a ton, ton, ton and, like you said, then I would have to consider if my novel was even worth other people reading, if it has been rejected.

Again, thanks for the awesome comments! And I do hope we get more comments/debate on it, because it's such a can of worms.