Self Publishing VS Agent

[ZombieWife]

The other thread was closed, so I thought I'd start this one. I had actually come to the board just now to try and find an old thread about this very topic. Because the search feature seems to be down, I thought I would simply create a new one.

I'd really be interested to engage in a discussion about self-publishing VS procuring an agent and going the publishing house route.

Furthermore, with the rise in ebooks and ebook publishing, what does that mean for writers wanting to carve out a name for themselves? Specifically, genre writers?

I've heard stories about authors who work some good PR and publish ebooks on their own and make some nice money.

I've heard of "plans" where you start out selling a short book at a buck a book (40-50k words, so perhaps it's a novella). You build a fanbase, then start to write longer pieces and charge more.

I have friends who are super gung-ho on the whole ebook/self-publishing thing, so much so that I'm (quite frankly) getting tired of hearing about it. The way many of them make it sound, it's like they'll snap their fingers and suddenly become the next best thing.

Yet, I also have people in the industry telling me, "don't go there just yet." That, if you go through an agent/publishing house, you can still publish in ebook format along with print, to let your agent and publishing house do their jobs.

I've read that people who self-publish only do so because they've been rejected (or they can't find a good agent).

I also read a dismal figure that said your average fantasy/sci-fi writer makes around $7500/year. I know that's a huge generalization, but it's something to consider.

Will ebooks change things?

Will self-publishing work? If so, for whom?

Lots of things to discuss.

Personally, I'm going the "traditional" route. Though I haven't made a huge splash in genre, I have a few literary pieces published in lit-mags, one that won a local award (might not mean much in the eyes of the non-locals, but it's something). I consider myself a pretty good writer and I love my craft.

But, I want an agent. I want my book on shelves in stores. Maybe that makes me a dinosaur, an ancient, but it is what it is, I guess.

[Werthead]

With self-publishing it's very hard to get a lot of attention for your work. The editorial process is there to tighten up the book and bring some expertise and experience to the book, which is often essential for first-time writers to avoid common pitfalls and mistakes.

For these reasons, a lot of people won't touch a self-published book. For example, I refuse tor review them. I don't have the time to read more than 10% of the books I want to released in any given year from the big houses, let alone having to wade into the SP field.

That's not to say that there aren't authors who self-publish or who put A LOT of work into self-editing up to a professional or near-professional standard. There's a few, and they're becoming slightly more commonplace. They're also the ones who tend to be snapped up by the big publishers after a year or two.

Something I must admit I'm surprised by is that we haven't seen many well-known authors take the more-lucrative step of self-publishing once they have become famous and successful through traditional means. At that point, the risk of people not reading the book as it's self-published disappears, and they make more money given that they tend to keep the money that traditionally goes to editors and publishers.

[ZombieWife]

It's interesting that you brought up editing. I read that in the other thread (now locked).

I do some freelance editing (for romance novels), and I can be heavy-handed at times, but won't go so far as to rewrite the thing. (They don't pay me enough to do that, haha.)

But, for big publishing houses, I wonder . . .

I know a girl who insists on going the self-publishing route. Her writing is okay. It's fun. It's got potential, but she could really really benefit from an editor. She thinks she is going to edit it all herself. I can see how editing can really get in someone's way, especially if their writing isn't "quite there" and would really shine with some editorial polish on it.

[emberling]

I wouldn't read a self-published book, because, as bad as you may think some published fiction is, it's high literature in comparison to some of the crap people put out with self-publishing. The bar is too low (or rather, it doesn't exist).

Since I wouldn't read one, I certainly wouldn't consider publishing a novel that way. I mean, I could see bleeding sweat and tears to make a novel, then having it be rejected, then giving up on ever having it published and having some copies made for myself and friends. But I can't see doing it with the intent of actually selling it for money.

Think of it this way: a stack of self-published novels and an editor or agent's slush pile are pretty much functionally identical. 99% of slush is rejected, and 90% of accepted books are crap. What are the chances that a self-published novel is going to be worth my time, even if it looks interesting? Yes, there are some that are. But will the random self-published book I encounter be that one? I can be reasonably confident it won't.

Obviously, this only applies to self-published works without critical acclaim, high recommendations from people who'd know, known authors, &c.

Frankly it boggles my mind that other people don't seem to automatically associate this same stigma to self-published books, and that, anecdotally, writers are actually reaching some level of success.

[Myshkin]

I won't bother with self published works. Seriously, there's a 99.9% chance it will be crap. Maybe I'm totally off-base but it's my opinion that your friends, and anyone else who is gung-ho about self publishing, are only gung-ho because they know they have no chance at being published, and instead of taking a good long look at their work they decide it's the elitist industry's fault.

[ZombieWife]

One friend is a GREAT writer and I keep telling her that I feel like she would be wasting her talent. If anything, writers are their own worst enemy, especially in the face of having an editor VS not having one.

I just think this friend is convinced that doing it herself means that she'll get all the profit and make tons more money. In my mind, that's a whole bunch of PR and marketing that you have to do for yourself, and, chances are you'll be pestering friends constantly to "BUY MY BOOK" and "PROMOTE MY BOOK FOR ME."

Sounds like a great way to lose a few friends. I never like being solicited by my pals for anything: tupperware, Pampered Chef, Avon, and most important, books.

It's interesting that the consensus here (so far) is that most self-published pieces will suck 99% of the time. I wonder how popular/successful self-publishers have gotten around that stigma.

I mean for me? I've never purchased a self-published book. I've never purchased a book that's only been released in eformat. I like SOME reassurance as a buyer that I'll be satisfied with what I purchase.

[The Evil Hat]

Self publishing is a way to give up the right to your book and brand yourself as someone with no sales potential unless you're one of the three people who make it work. So yes, it's possible. Yes, you can also be hit by lightning twice in one day. No, it's not going to happen.

The average customer has no reason at all to read a self published book over a regular one, and reviewers have less. Some people self publish because of idealistic reasons, but most do it because they can't get in through a major publisher. Maybe .001% of those are rejected due to unseen genius. The rest are just bad writers, though they (like every writer on the planet) think that they're worthy.

I've a friend who self published his debut. This friend is a great writer - though you'll obviously just have to take my word on that. He put it out there, tried to drum up some sales, and moved...eleven copies. Two of which were bought by me. Now major publishers will have no interest in the book, unless he happens to become an overnight bestseller, because it's already out there and has a terrible track record.

[felice]

Another option is small presses. They're not generally inundated with the same overwhelming torrent of submissions as the big publishing houses, so are perhaps more likely to notice a worthy novel, or accept works that would appeal to small niches. They potentially offer just as much in the way of quality control, though obviously that depends on the press - check out what else they publish! Sales might not be much of an improvement over self-publishing, but it certainly gives you a bit more credibility.

[Lummel]

Will self-publishing work? If so, for whom?

Yes, if you have a distinct and specialised market that you can tap more or as effectively as a mainstream publisher. For example if your school/college has an association of former pupils and you are writing a history of the school/biographies of famous ex-students etc, you have a membership list and you can market directly to those people, take orders in advance that kind of thing, you could tap that market fairly effectively.

If you are writing general interest fiction, well possibly you could make it work as a marketing tool to get taken on by a publisher, otherwise no.

Something I must admit I'm surprised by is that we haven't seen many well-known authors take the more-lucrative step of self-publishing once they have become famous and successful through traditional means. At that point, the risk of people not reading the book as it's self-published disappears, and they make more money given that they tend to keep the money that traditionally goes to editors and publishers.

On the whole I think writers want to write and not do their own marketing and promotion, drafting contracts with printers and bookshops, pursuing orders, dealing with banks etc. If you are a published author who is increasingly more established and successful then publishing houses are going to be giving you better deals that allow to live the life you want without the hassle of publishing your own work so why take the risk of reducing your sales?

I just think this friend is convinced that doing it herself means that she'll get all the profit and make tons more money. In my mind, that's a whole bunch of PR and marketing that you have to do for yourself, and, chances are you'll be pestering friends constantly to "BUY MY BOOK" and "PROMOTE MY BOOK FOR ME."

I've a friend who self published his debut. This friend is a great writer - though you'll obviously just have to take my word on that. He put it out there, tried to drum up some sales, and moved...eleven copies. Two of which were bought by me. Now major publishers will have no interest in the book, unless he happens to become an overnight bestseller, because it's already out there and has a terrible track record.

Zombiewife, your friend is right she will get all the profit. But she will be getting all the profit of a tiny number of sales. And that's assuming that she makes a profit and doesn't make a loss.

I think some people have difficulty with the idea that making a small percentage off a good number of sales can be far more money than making a giant percentage of no or very few sales.

When I go into a bookshop I don't even see any self published books and how am I going to hunt down over the internet a book that I don't even know exists? And why should I, the world is already full of books that are fighting for my attention.

Small presses as per Felice are a better option particularly if they have connections with local bookshops. Coming out as a local author could be good as part of your marketing - so long as the content of your book doesn't inspire angry mobs to reach for their pitchforks of course.

[Gargantuanjon Old Chap]

I'd only read a self-pulbished book if at least 10 people with same tastes as I (people I knew about, not fake reviewers on Amazon) raved about it. Of course, that's silly. According to this I should have no problem finding awesome self-published books (reading the comments hurt my eyes).

As for all the self-published best-sellers, like Amanda Hocking, John Locke and JA Konrath: God, have you seen inside those books? What. The. Fuck.

I firmly believe that cheap self-pubbed e-books mainly (I don't want to generalize) attract a certain type of people... they don't give much shit about literature. Same people who made a bestseller out of DV Code and Twilight. Except DV Code and Twilight are million of light years ahead of illiterate, plot hole ridden crap produced by the self-published best-sellers.

[Spring Bass]

I actually own four self-published books from a series. However, the author had originally published the stories on-line before converting them into self-published books to buy off Amazon, so I knew what I was getting.

You won't make great sales doing that, and publishing the stories on-line likely means that you won't get to publish them conventionally in the unlikely chance that your work is a hit. But you might manage to sell some books to people other than friends and family.

[mjgambino]

I have a friend that self-publishes books on programming. Obviously not the same as fiction, but he does okay on his sales. (So he claims).

As for fiction, I rarely check out anything self-published unless I hear really good things about it from a source I trust. Even then, I'm usually disappointed. However, I would never write something off just because it was self-published.

Also, I've always wondered the same thing as Wert. I would think self publishing would be a good option for a successful traditional author.

[henderson]

As someone who has looked at this issue for a while now, I think I am seriously considering self-publishing. It has its draw back just like traditional publishing and small press, and I think the biggest draw back would be that no one would want to read my book.

I think self-publishing is another way to get your book into the market. Of course, there is a stigma of the book being self-published and refined readers such as the people who post here and other boards are probably not going to be the people who I would market my book towards because they would probably not be interestd in reading it anyway.

I think if a book is edited and a has a been professionally edited, a solid cover art, and marketed effectively, then the book might have a chance, albeit small, of being successful. I think most readers when looking for books that might interest them or have heard from a friend or a relative that a book is good are not going care about whether or not the book was traditionally published, small press published, or self published, especially if it is an ebook.

I think if a writer is considering self-publishing a book,the writer should probably not look to blogger such as kcf and wert or bloggers who are known and trusted by fantasy and sff readers who post on boards like this for marketing and reviewing opportunities. The bias is just too great against a writer who self publishes.

Fortunatately, there are other ways for self-published authors to get the word out about his or her book on the internet. Many authors are finding success, see Robin Sullivan's great blog (writetopublish) to read some of the success stories of self-published (or indie-published) authors. It is possible.

I think there will be a time when stigma of self-publishing will no longer be a problem, but it will be a matter of time. It is interesting to note that there is no such stigma for indie musicians who have decided to go it alone as opposed to being signed to a record company.

[Lummel]

The big problem I see with self publishing is finding a market.

With a publishing company somebody else is managing that risk for you, more than that they believe in your product and take that risk on to themselves.

As a self-publisher you are starting out from a potential zero position - nobody knows your name, nobody is interested¹ that you have written a book - and you, potentially singlehandedly, need to change that so that enough people are interested that you can recoup your costs and maybe make a little extra on the side.

As customers we may well have fixed buying habits. We probably read similar number of books from one year to the next and we probably buy them from pretty much the same places and we base those buying decisions on pretty much the same kinds and proportions of inputs be it word of mouth, TV or Cinema tie-ins, book reviews, book clubs & what have you from one year to the next. The self-published author somehow has to break into that in order to make their sales. And quite possibly they are going to try to do that without any background or experience in marketing or contacts in the publishing or bookselling business. Sounds tough to me.

I'm sure some people do make money publishing their own books, but I'd expect that most of those keep the day job and that it took some time to build up a customer base.

1 By nobody I mean nobody outside your immediate personal circle, not literally nobody because that would be too sad.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I've self published, I'll self publish again. I am...THE GREAT EVAL.

Yes, there is a considerable amount of shit out there. John Locke pisses me off royally with his fake reviews and 99cent books that trick people into buying them. I tried to read a Hocking novel, other than an interesting prologue, it was horrid. I do hear good things about Michael Hicks and David Dalglish and will probably try them out later this year.

No, I have not yet made tons of money. Figuring out how to promo is a whole different game than writing and I'm just learning it. But let's not pretend most traditional authors make super bucks either. They keep their day jobs too, nine times out of ten.

Ebook self publishing has major kinks still. But this is the future of publishing. Borders is dying, other bookstores aren't doing much better, and Kindles are selling like crazy. It's a technological change, at the moment things are rough, they'll smooth out, just like blogs/newspapers and mp3/cds did.

My decision was both economic and a matter of writing what I want to write without a publisher leaning over my shoulder telling me was sells. If I ever go with something very commercial, maybe I'll look at the Big Six, who knows. It doesn't have to be either/or.

[emberling]

But this is the future of publishing.

E-books? Print on demand? Sure. Lack of editorial gatekeeping? Fuck no. There is no "future of publishing" in the vanity press paradigm, and if there were, it would be a fucking tragedy. Why? Because books that could be great if they just had a competent editor will instead be riddled with plot-holes, zombie darlings, consistency errors, and just plain poor writing. The easier it gets to self-publish, the more authors will skip the arduous process of turning their draft of great potential into a manuscript of great greatness. Editing is hard. Being able to say "good enough" and release it into the wild is too tempting.

Even if we're talking 'professionally edited' - and that's not exactly an encouraging idea because it sounds to me like we're losing 'the money flows to the writer' there - with a self-publishing-type scheme it's the author who decides when it's done. Frankly, authors aren't qualified to decide that.

So yeah. It's about the text and what's in it. Saying it's about whether e-books or POD are the future of publishing is disingenuous, because those technologies can be used by a traditional publisher. Maybe it won't be Simon & Schuster or whatever that ends up being king during the PUBLISHING OF TOMORROW but I guarantee you that any reputable way to publish your book will, and always will, have a required editorial process and the ability and willingness to reject you.

[henderson]

I'm sure some people do make money publishing their own books, but I'd expect that most of those keep the day job and that it took some time to build up a customer base.

1

This is also true for majority of authors who have their books published by traditional publishers.

[henderson]

E-books? Print on demand? Sure. Lack of editorial gatekeeping? Fuck no. There is no "future of publishing" in the vanity press paradigm, and if there were, it would be a fucking tragedy. Why? Because books that could be great if they just had a competent editor will instead be riddled with plot-holes, zombie darlings, consistency errors, and just plain poor writing. The easier it gets to self-publish, the more authors will skip the arduous process of turning their draft of great potential into a manuscript of great greatness. Editing is hard. Being able to say "good enough" and release it into the wild is too tempting.

Even if we're talking 'professionally edited' - and that's not exactly an encouraging idea because it sounds to me like we're losing 'the money flows to the writer' there - with a self-publishing-type scheme it's the author who decides when it's done. Frankly, authors aren't qualified to decide that.

So yeah. It's about the text and what's in it. Saying it's about whether e-books or POD are the future of publishing is disingenuous, because those technologies can be used by a traditional publisher. Maybe it won't be Simon & Schuster or whatever that ends up being king during the PUBLISHING OF TOMORROW but I guarantee you that any reputable way to publish your book will, and always will, have a required editorial process and the ability and willingness to reject you.

Many to the traditional publishing houses are downsizing or have already downsized, which means a lot of editors were let go, including acquisitions editors. Many of these editors are free-lancing. Because of the downsizing, many publishers are not accepting unsolicited submissions and only would review a manuscript if its author is represented by an agent.

Many agents are seeing what is happening with ebooks and how it has changed publishing, and are now becoming epublishers. For a slice of the profits, some agencies have become publishers.

[emberling]

Many agents are seeing what is happening with ebooks and how it has changed publishing, and are now becoming epublishers. For a slice of the profits, some agencies have become publishers.

"For a slice of the profits" - in other words, money flows to the author*, as it should - and presumably using the agency's already-established system of rejecting 99% of the slush they receive - that's not self-publishing, that's real publishing, whether or not they're distributing the text via POD or e-books.

*If you're not familiar with this phrase, it doesn't mean that the author gets a whole flood of money or anything; all it means is that the author does not, at any point in the process, shell out cash to get their book on the shelves. You don't pay an agent to read your MS, you don't pay an editor to edit it; they get paid by commission or by the publisher. Which means they have a vested interest in doing right by you.

[henderson]

"For a slice of the profits" - in other words, money flows to the author*, as it should - and presumably using the agency's already-established system of rejecting 99% of the slush they receive - that's not self-publishing, that's real publishing, whether or not they're distributing the text via POD or e-books.

*If you're not familiar with this phrase, it doesn't mean that the author gets a whole flood of money or anything; all it means is that the author does not, at any point in the process, shell out cash to get their book on the shelves. You don't pay an agent to read your MS, you don't pay an editor to edit it; they get paid by commission or by the publisher. Which means they have a vested interest in doing right by you.

Thank for informing me about this phrase, I have come across "money flow to the authors" many times when topics of self-publishing and traditional publishing are also discussed. I also read about how long it could possibly take for a book to be published once a manuscript is accepted by a traditional publishing company. It could be as long as one year to two years or longer (look at what happened to Ian Tregillis). I have also heard about authors being dropped by traditional publishers like Tor did with Daniel Abraham and his Long Price Quartet. Tor not publishing the last novel in mmpb. I have also heard about authors who were able not get rights even if the publishers had rights to their back lists, so these authors could try finding other publishers. I have read about how some traditional publishing companies are under reporting ebook sales, so that authors are not being paid al the royalties that they are due. I have read that a traditional publisher get 52.5% of each ebook sale, and the author gets less 16% of each book sale. The agent's cut comes of the author's percentage and the traditional publisher's. I read that traditional publishers are selling the ebook at the same price point as an actual book of the same title.

I read about self-publishing. A self-published author could get 35% or 70% of each ebook sold depending if the ebook is sold on Amazon or one of the ebookstores. I read about some former midlist traditionally published authors, after they have been dropped by the traditional publishing companies because of lack of profitability, finding success or renewed success self-publishing. I read about self-published authors able to publish a book on his or her timeline as opposed to finding a date that is suitable to the traditional publishing company when putting together the annual publishing catalog. I also read about traditonal published authors getting a date a six months to a year out, only to learn two weeks before the release of this book that the date has been pushed back.

I also have heard the gate-keeper argument. Gatekeepers are necessary because someone has to ensure that crap is not available. The gatekeepers are agents and acquisition editors at traditional publishing companies. Even with the gatekeepers, there is still a great deal of crap being published.