Thread: Animosity Towards Publishers and Editors?

Those royalties may be lower than you would like, but they are dependable and can continue quite a while, if the product is good. Once the publisher assumes responsibility, you as a writer are free to do what you do best - write. You do not have to pay anyone anything. Not even your agent. He makes nothing until the money starts to flow, and the money stream flows toward you, not away.

Self-publishing is much easier, and certainly more respectable, than in years gone by. What the writer thinking of self publishing must consider is whether he will be effective as a publisher. Can he get himself onto the radio talk shows, arrange the tv interviews, convince reviewers at major periodicals to read and comment on his book? Will a Youtube video promoted on Facebook lead to significant sales? And while all theses details of promotion are taking up the writer/publisher's time, what happens to the next book? Will it ever be written?

Of course the self-published author can hang his book out there and get on with the next project, but will that generate a living wage? I don't know. All of my experience has been with various kinds of publishers, media houses, governments, non-governmental organisations, and such, all of whom paid me to write something. In other words, straight along traditional ways of publishing.

Originally Posted by garza

… What the writer thinking of self publishing must consider is whether he will be effective as a publisher. Can he get himself onto the radio talk shows, arrange the tv interviews, convince reviewers at major periodicals to read and comment on his book? Will a Youtube video promoted on Facebook lead to significant sales? And while all theses details of promotion are taking up the writer/publisher's time, what happens to the next book? Will it ever be written? …

This is precisely why I pointed out that I receive unsolicited press releases, presskits, and books (in an earlier post). I was trying to point out the wide reach of traditional publishers. Here I am, a publisher of a locally focused newspaper and host of a half-hour show on a local NPR/college station. My newspaper has nowhere near the circulation of the big daily paper, and my show is on the local jazz station and not on the larger, richer, all-news NPR station in the city next door. I admit that I sometimes get overlooked during local marketing campaigns. Now, consider the book "The Encyclopedia of North Carolina." I was really flattered to have been approached by the publisher of that book, because I knew that it was probably sending materials and making phone calls to hundreds of newspaper editors and radio stations in all 100 counties in North Carolina! And we're talking about a book with limited appeal (geographically speaking). Imagine what publishers are doing for books with national and international audiences. Can the average self-publisher really replicate this level of marketing? I certainly plan to try when my book comes out. As a member of the media, I know quite a few publishers and radio hosts in my area, Chicago (my hometown), and Georgia. But I know darn well that it would be nearly impossible to have the time to research and contact media outlets around the country while trying to work, write, and do all of my "family stuff" at the same time!

On the other hand, when I finish my next project, which has a hyperlocal focus dealing with the history of my town, I will go the self-publishing route. I'm sure that I'll be able to move product easily with the help of my many local contacts. In fact, I'm considering moving this project ahead of my larger nonfiction book. It's possible that the popularity of a self-published book might tip the scales in my favor when seeking representation down the road. Maybe. I hope.

I have to be candid. The OP and followup posts convince me not to buy this book. I'm certain I would be wasting my money. Why do I say that? Such a negative attitude to the traditional publishing industry means either that the author has had his book rejected and can't learn from that or that he really has insufficient confidence in the work to attempt the traditional route. When it comes to rejections, my experience is that those who write the most unpublishable works are those who shout loudest about how awful the publishing industry is and are quick to jump on the bandwagon to prophesy its demise.

Rolleyes.

*facepalm*

When self publishing the onus is on the writer to promote his work, that's a no-brainer. To that end it's important to consider the image you're projecting. If it's being suggested that your attitude in this thread might discourage people from buying your book then you really want to think about that. With a traditional publisher there would be a marketing expert to handle this side of things to ensure that the right message goes out. You don't have that benefit when you're out there on your own.

Originally Posted by Robert Donnell

Do I have animosity towards Publishers and Editors? I would if I thought of them at all. I don't spend much time thinking of buggy whip makers or do-do birds either.

It's quite curious then how much effort you're putting into disputing their worth.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

The point isn't moot because it's still damn hard for any fiction writer to earn their living as a writer. And it doesn't matter how they get published or what format they use.

Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract. Most of those writers couldn't get a trade publishing contract because their books were bad and hence they still won't make much, but the top 10% or so can probably make a decent living now with 70% royalties on self-published books vs pushing the manuscript under their bed before.

The good writers who don't want to be publishers.

Sure, they may prefer to see their publisher make three or more times as much money as they do on each e-book they sell, but we'll have to wait and see. My guess is that a good writer is probably smart enough to realise that unless they're the next Stephen King, they're better off selling their books themselves or going with a new publisher like Amazon.

If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky, they'll get a trade contract, not have to spend any money, get a decent advance, and continuing royalties.

So as a new writer they'll get around $5,000 paid over several years. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they could make more than that self-publishing.

Well, the contracts aren't forced down anyone's throat, and like any contract, they're negotiable.

What do you think of the odds of Big Publisher X saying 'yes' when I say 'I want a contract like Stephen King where I only license the rights to you for a few years and I get a 50% share of the profits'?

That just isn't going to happen for a new writer unless they have a very popular book that everyone wants to buy. If it's just another mid-list book, the publisher would laugh them out of the office... there are plenty more writers waiting to replace them.

I just don't see why trade publishers have to be painted in a bad light (or the authors who chose to go that route) in order to justify self-publishing. As I said elsewhere (possibly here, who knows), show me an author who can state why s/he's self-publishing without trashing trade publishing, and I'll show you a writer who may be worth reading.

Few people would self-publish if trade publishers offered them a good deal. Stephen King has no need to self-publish because he's already getting good terms from his publisher. Joe Newbie who's offered a $5,000 advance on 10% royalties and will have to sign away his rights in perpetuity and agree to a non-compete clause and probably worse... isn't in the same position.

This is why many of the writers who became popular by self-publishing e-books are now published by Amazon, because Amazon offered them a much better deal than the existing trade publishers; good royalties, no oppressive contract clauses and excellent marketing direct to the people who'd want to buy their books. I can't see how trade publishers can compete with that without radically changing their practices.

Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 | Books | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by Baron

*facepalm*

When self publishing the onus is on the writer to promote his work, that's a no-brainer. To that end it's important to consider the image you're projecting. If it's being suggested that your attitude in this thread might discourage people from buying your book then you really want to think about that. With a traditional publisher there would be a marketing expert to handle this side of things to ensure that the right message goes out. You don't have that benefit when you're out there on your own.

To be honest, what will prevent people from buying the book is the "Look Inside" experience for Shattered Worlds on Amazon. I went to the site and read portions of several chapters. I have avoided commenting on what I found there because I didn't want to embarrass the OP. I have much respect for anyone who has the fortitude to stick with a novel writing project to completion, that is a daunting task. But the OP's attitude in this thread indicates to me that he feels his book is the equal to works published through traditional means. That is not the case. The formatting of the book is amateurish, with paragraphs being divided by blank lines -- sometimes one, other times two -- and the font seems overly large. The author fails to separate the dialogue from multiple speakers into individual paragraphs making conversations confusing, and there are numerous grammatical errors. The overall narrative flow is hectic, jerky, and uncomfortable to read.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but this book is precisely the sort of work which has given self-publishing a bad reputation.

Originally Posted by movieman

Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract. Most of those writers couldn't get a trade publishing contract because their books were bad and hence they still won't make much, but the top 10% or so can probably make a decent living now with 70% royalties on self-published books vs pushing the manuscript under their bed before.

That 70% you refer to is a base-rating. It doesn't take into account the minimum 40% royalty of all sales that bookstores will request. In some of my dealings, I've even been quoted 50% of every sale. So unless you're content to sell your book out of the boot of your car, that 70% is wishful thinking.

Let me put it into figures for you. A standard novel-sized book with 400 pages will cost you approximately £7.50 to print with Lulu. Most trade paperbacks are sold at between £8.99 to £10.99. Let's say you retail yours at £9.99 for handiness' sake. Before any increments are taken into account, you stand to make a profit of £2.50 per book. Seems quite a lot to begin with. However, if you consider that the bookstore is going to take at least £4.00 of that, you realise your first major problem. Your profit vanishes. Moreover, it's actually costing you money to have your books sold in bookstores.

You could always charge £11.99 a novel, but it's asking a lot for people to buy a traditional paperback for that kind of money -- never mind a self-published novel.

Originally Posted by Terry D

To be honest, what will prevent people from buying the book is the "Look Inside" experience for Shattered Worlds on Amazon. I went to the site and read portions of several chapters. I have avoided commenting on what I found there because I didn't want to embarrass the OP. I have much respect for anyone who has the fortitude to stick with a novel writing project to completion, that is a daunting task. But the OP's attitude in this thread indicates to me that he feels his book is the equal to works published through traditional means. That is not the case. The formatting of the book is amateurish, with paragraphs being divided by blank lines -- sometimes one, other times two -- and the font seems overly large. The author fails to separate the dialogue from multiple speakers into individual paragraphs making conversations confusing, and there are numerous grammatical errors. The overall narrative flow is hectic, jerky, and uncomfortable to read.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but this book is precisely the sort of work which has given self-publishing a bad reputation.

I'm never one for kicking a man when he is down, but the first paragraph of the work tells me all I need to know.

No body knows what the hell happened

'Nobody' is all one word. To be fair, that isn't even a difficult form to get right. I've noticed several other mistakes too: run-on sentences, comma splices, misspellings. I admire the OP's will to finish the novel and get it out there, but some of it reads as though it never saw an edit -- even from the author himself. I know grammar and syntax aren't more important than the story. However, when you self-publish it's generally best that the work has as little mistakes as possible. It makes it look more professional.

If the OP plans to sell 800 copies of this, it seems to me that he won't be selling 800 of the sequel. You can't consistently get away with that kind of sloppiness.

Originally Posted by movieman

Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract

Most published authors cannot live off their writing, regardless of how they got published. Obviously if they never publish they aren't going to be able to live off their writing either, but I didn't realize I had to spell that out.

Originally Posted by movieman

My guess is that a good writer is probably smart enough to realise that unless they're the next Stephen King, they're better off selling their books themselves or going with a new publisher like Amazon.

So if a writer decides to go with trade publishers they're stupid, huh? Or maybe they know that most of what self-publishers claim about sales is hogwash. How's that for a broad generalization?

Originally Posted by movieman

So as a new writer they'll get around $5,000 paid over several years. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they could make more than that self-publishing.

Not over several years - possibly 18-24 months. On signing, when the manuscript is finished and accepted, and on publication. And of course, the smaller the advance, the sooner royalties kick in. As to whether or not it would equal self-publishing income, well, who knows? It's not as if anyone is publishing their tax returns as proof.

Originally Posted by movieman

What do you think of the odds of Big Publisher X saying 'yes' when I say 'I want a contract like Stephen King where I only license the rights to you for a few years and I get a 50% share of the profits'?

About the same as a self-publisher being the next Amanda Hocking.

Originally Posted by movieman

Few people would self-publish if trade publishers offered them a good deal. Stephen King has no need to self-publish because he's already getting good terms from his publisher. Joe Newbie who's offered a $5,000 advance on 10% royalties and will have to sign away his rights in perpetuity and agree to a non-compete clause and probably worse... isn't in the same position.

If Joe Newbie doesn't like the contract, he can negotiate or go elsewhere - if one publisher wants him, others will too. And let's face it - not getting a good deal (versus a ridiculously unrealistic deal) is not why most writers turn to self-publishing.

Originally Posted by movieman

This is why many of the writers who became popular by self-publishing e-books are now published by Amazon

Ahem... Amazon is a trade publisher. And again nobody forces writers to sign oppressive contracts. And if the book is good, any publisher will want to make a fair deal with the author because there are going to be more books coming down the road from them. I mean, unless you figure trade publishers are both greedy and dumb...

If Joe Newbie doesn't like the contract, he can negotiate or go elsewhere - if one publisher wants him, others will too. And let's face it - not getting a good deal (versus a ridiculously unrealistic deal) is not why most writers turn to self-publishing.

Not getting a good deal is why most sensible writers get an agent.

I decided to take a peek at "Shattered Worlds," too. Wow. Even if it might be considered unfair to criticize the level of writing, there's no mistaking that the table of contents is a mess. There's Chapter One, then Chapter 2, etc … and the chapter numbers scare me. You'll see Chapter Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Twenty Two, Twenty Three, Twenty-Four—eek! What a mess. Again, I'll be nice and not say anything about the actual writing, except that I should have read a sample at amazon.com much earlier. In the future, I won't waste time going back and forth with someone who's clearly not ready for the big time. There is absolutely no way that a writer at this level can be taken seriously with the arrogant attitude that he has. Encouragement could be called for in this case, but not when the writer is too delusional to accept it. I'm done here. Yikes!

I think the writer might benefit from withdrawing the work from publication and going through it chapter by chapter in the workshop. That way he may get it polished enough to be presentable.