Kindle #s: Traditional Vs. Self Publishing -- Blog posting by JA Konrath

[Lynn ODell]

We have had at least two authors get publishing contracts after publishing to the Kindle.  One was for the books that he had already published on the Kindle and the other got a contract for his next book.

Didn't the sales rankings and wonderful response from their Kindle versions help them get these contracts?

[Jack Kilborn]

Right. But, if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'

Those are the only choices? Sell it to a large publisher or immediately throw it away?

How about sitting on it for a few years and viewing it objectively later? How about writing another book, selling that one, and then selling the first one?

That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.
If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)

Ambition is great. But it is still important to pick your battles, lest "ambition" and "foolhardy" become interchangeable.

The majority of self-pubbed authors I've met don't even know what Ingram is. This doesn't show much foresight or understanding of how publishing works.

Correct. Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.

If your goals involve other people, then you have no control over them and they aren't goals--they're dreams.

I recommend setting attainable goals, which can coincide with your dreams. But this means understanding how the business works. And the vast majority of those who understand the business ultimately reject self-publishing as a non-option.

This isn't an "us against them" scenario. It's about learning craft and structure, and how the biz works.

[Jack Kilborn]

This is where your argument gets lost - you're taking the worst of the industry and treating it as if all self-pubbed work is like this. Why so negative?

Because I judged two self-published novel contests, and five short story contests, for Writer's Digest Magazine, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It was a real eye-opener.

99% of all self-published work IS awful, at least according the the stuff I was sent, and the stuff I've seen as a teacher and paid speaker.

Honestly, Kristen, how many self-pubbed books have you bought and loved? And did you buy them without knowing the author beforehand?

I'd love to give you $10,000 and send you to iUniverse and tell you to buy a bunch of books and prove me wrong, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Those are the only choices? Sell it to a large publisher or immediately throw it away?

How about sitting on it for a few years and viewing it objectively later? How about writing another book, selling that one, and then selling the first one?

*shrug* Why wait? Life's short. It's a waste to take it (life, that is) THAT seriously. Besides - always trusting someone else more than you trust yourself is just bad instincts.

Ambition is great. But it is still important to pick your battles, lest "ambition" and "foolhardy" become interchangeable.

For the sake of argument (assuming self-publishing is always "foolhardy" - is that the only option? you either wait for a trad publisher or you're foolhardy?), let's say the two do become interchangeable.

So what? Why does that bother you?

The majority of self-pubbed authors I've met don't even know what Ingram is. This doesn't show much foresight or understanding of how publishing works.

They sure learn, though! No better way to learn than through getting the experience yourself. I know I've learned A LOT - and, actually, I can honestly say I'm glad my book wasn't one of the lucky ones picked up immediately. This whole experience has been supremely educational, not to mention gratifying and personally fulfilling (and yes, also frustrating).

If your goals involve other people, then you have no control over them and they aren't goals--they're dreams.

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

I recommend setting attainable goals, which can coincide with your dreams. But this means understanding how the business works. And the vast majority of those who understand the business ultimately reject self-publishing as a non-option.

And I respect their decision - as much as I respect the decisions of those who go it alone because they're pretty confident their writing will be well received - even loved!

This isn't an "us against them" scenario. It's about learning craft and structure, and how the biz works.

No it isn't. It's about learning it the way YOU think they should learn it.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Because I judged two self-published novel contests, and five short story contests, for Writer's Digest Magazine, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It was a real eye-opener.

99% of all self-published work IS awful, at least according the the stuff I was sent, and the stuff I've seen as a teacher and paid speaker.

Honestly, Kristen, how many self-pubbed books have you bought and loved? And did you buy them without knowing the author beforehand?

I'd love to give you $10,000 and send you to iUniverse and tell you to buy a bunch of books and prove me wrong, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to.

You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.

[Jack Kilborn]

We have had at least two authors get publishing contracts after publishing to the Kindle.  One was for the books that he had already published on the Kindle and the other got a contract for his next book.

Didn't the sales rankings and wonderful response from their Kindle versions help them get these contracts?

Absolutely. Things are changing pretty fast, which is why it is important to have critics to help separate the good from the bad.

In fact, things are changing so quickly that I don't think I'll ever give up my ebook rights again in a contract, unless it's for a lot of money. I believe I can earn more on Kindle by self-publishing. This is a far cry from the early days of vanity presses.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Absolutely. Things are changing pretty fast, which is why it is important to have critics to help separate the good from the bad.

So it's not only the objective publishers who know the good from the bad, now - it's the critics, too?

Do you agree, then, that if a critic thinks a self-published book is good, it's good?

(I sound argumentative, but honestly, I'm just confused. Some of what you say reads as contradictory.)

[Eric C]

Great discussion. For my thoughts, I'll use analogy to start. Major publishing houses = the major leagues. The rest is minor league. Some people are perfectly happy staying in the minor leagues. The owner of my local candlestick bowling alley when I was a kid was the all-time strike-out king of the minor leagues. When I attended Duke University I often attended minor league games to root for the Durham Bulls. Good times! There's nothing wrong with being second rate. (Or third rate--you should see me play basketball.) Because you can still enjoy what you're doing and so, amazingly enough, will others. So let the minor leagues flourish, Triple A to D ball.

Now for those authors seeking a major league career, there isn't necessarily a downside to toiling in the minor leagues for a spell, particularly if you avoid paying significant money for the privilege of publishing, and you know the odds of success going in. (Long, but then the odds via the traditional route to a major publisher are long too.)

There could even be benefits. It's good training, for example, to learn how to market a book--especially now that the major publishers expect more marketing effort from their authors (I hear they'll even ask you to chip in cash money nowadays--lol).

But if all an author is doing is pushing subpar material and selling books largely on the back of marketing expertise and effort rather than writing skill, then that person is indeed wasting his/her time, considering the goal in mind is a major publisher. That person would be better served by writing more.

But as far as recommending that every author go the traditional route, let it be acknowledged that agents and editors make mistakes all the time. (Every relevant publisher in NY passed on The Firm until Tom Cruise bought the film rights. There are countless other examples. Some agent or editor will pass on a future best seller today it is so common an occurrence.) So couldn't the minor leagues of publishing be considered a self-correcting mechanism? Well in fact that's what happened with Boyd Morrison recently. All the publishers passed on his books two years ago, and now, suddenly a multi-book deal with S&S after several thousand in Kindle sales.

My novel, Crack-Up, was passed up by every relevant publisher in NY, but my agent, who once ran a pair of imprints at a major publishing house, tells me they're all wrong, and I say they're all wrong, so I've put it before the people, and guess what: I've got no platform, no website, no marketing skill, and not much interest in it (I don't even have a thread at Kindle Boards dedicated to my book), and I'm outselling some Konrad and some Goldberg. Maybe I'll be the next Boyd. If not, it'll be someone else who gets called up to "the show." The times they have a-changed.

[MariaESchneider]

That's kind of my point, Joe.  I think it is because Kindle is a new market and a new way of reading--PLUS you have been traditionally published--all these things work in your favor.  Downloading and reading a PDF is not that great.  I read ebooks--and I choose mobi and read it on a reader if I have a choice.  With PDF, I can't change font sizes (I had to write to an author once to get a larger sized font because I couldn't read the ebook.)  Kindle solves some limitations and issues.

So what I'm getting at here is that some of your conclusions need to be expanded.  Your book is still available for free, but it turns out that people would rather grab it on a site where they are already shopping; they want your book (wrote to you) because they had heard of you and so on. 

I think self publishing is fine so long as people go into it with their eyes open.  There's room for a different set of books because the medium is different, the pricing is different and so on.  Will we all be a raging success?  No. But is that what we are trying for?  Not necessarily.  We are filling a niche--based on price, format and so on.   

Is traditional publishing the way to go if you can swing it?  For a lot of reasons, yes.  But as you also admit, you don't want to sell all your rights to a trad publisher--because you don't need to.  But guess what?  They also value that editing that they do.  They also value their name behind your book.  SO they aren't going to want to give up ebook rights either.  Your world is about to get very interesting.

 

Thanks for that, Maria.

Remember though--The List was on my website for years as a free download. It's still a free download. And in my afterword, I do state the book has never been traditionally published.

The only reason I got started with Kindle in the first place was because Kindlers emailed me, because they wanted to read it but couldn't convert the pdf file. So I put it on Kindle, but Kindle wouldn't let me release it for free. So I charged two bucks, and now I'm making a nice chunk of change. Funny how things work out...

[Jack Kilborn]

You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.

That smacks of disdain for the very industry you're striving to become a part of, and also comes off as rather nearsighted.

Chances are every book you've ever read and loved--some which may be the reasons you decided to become a writer--are all traditionally published.

 
So it's not only the objective publishers who know the good from the bad, now - it's the critics, too?

I think I've put together a sound argument that I believe is pretty easy to follow.

There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published. That's one of my first comments in this thread, and it pertains to books where that minimum quality standard is reached.

In the print world, publishers are gatekeepers that keep out the majority of the sub-par crap. They do this because they understand how books work, both as a craft and as a business.

Kindle has allowed self-pubbers to reach an audience by bypassing traditional publishing distribution routes. So now the publishers can't vet the crap that gets on the virtual shelves. Hence the need for critics.

No it isn't. It's about learning it the way YOU think they should learn it.

My goal has always been to inform authors. Which is why I write a blog called A Newbie's Guide to Publishing, which shares what I've learned. I've made a lot of mistakes, and if that can prevent others from making those same mistakes, I'm being useful.

One of the things I've seen, over and over again, is unhappy authors who have self-published.

As for goals, you should only set goals that don't involve other people who have power over them by saying "yes" or "no."

Becoming a bestselling author isn't a goal. It's a dream.

Writing the best book possible and submitting to ten agents by January 1 is a goal.

If your dream is to get published, you can set goals in order to get closer to fulfilling your dream. The goals you set depends a lot on how much you understand the dream you're trying to reach.

[Christopher Meeks]

What irks me is people using a long shot like that as their business model. A much smarter business model--and one with much better odds--is to go the traditional publishing route.

Jack--

Your points are interesting, and what I'm seeing here is you're getting the best of both worlds. You've been traditionally published--which is a great thing--and you've pulled out your books in a drawer that traditional publishers had not gone for earlier in your life and you've self-published them and are finding out you're having some good sales. The marketplace is responding positively. You may even be thinking that some of the publishers who had rejected you were wrong--unless of course you're laughing and saying something like, "Those Kindle users--they'll buy anything." I doubt you're saying that, though.

In the spirited debade over the last eight hours while I've been sleeping, a few points come across clearly to me:

1) There are terrible books published traditionally and probably even more terrible books published independently.
2) People who are using Kindles are finding some great independently published books--including yours if sales are an indicator.
3) People using Kindles can get samples, and if something doesn't interest them, they don't buy.
4) First impressions are everything--true in bookstores reading the first page and true on Kindles reading a sample.
5) Some writers just don't get it when it comes to reviews: they don't listen and reviewers, they think, can be argued with. Hence, Red Adept's reaction of interacting with some great writers and some deluded ones.

It's doubtful I'll convince you to drop your agent and publish only through iUniverse and Kindle. That's because I don't believe that, either. I'm not here to say traditional publishers are terrible and self-publishing is the greatest thing since sacramental wine. Heck, I've worked as an senior editor for a publisher, so I know publishing from the side you're arguing about. I can even tell you about deluded writers sending us their manuscripts with such great cover letters as "This children's book will make you a lot of money because I read it to my nephews and they luved [sic] it. It will make you a lot of money." We were publishing only computer books--so the delusion is even funnier. The worst/funniest cover letters would go on the company refrigerator.

I started this note because you mentioned business models, and you seem to assume I or anyone independently publishing has a mistaken business model. Rather, I argue, you're mistaken in assuming such a thing. I'm coming at this having been in publishing. My short fiction was being published through an incredible vetting process: the literary magazine world. Literary magazines such as the North Dakota Review receive over 500 submissions a month to publsh ten stories a year. The better known journals such as Nimrod, the Missouri Review, and Tin House, receive thousands of submissions a month for only a handful of spots. In most cases, literary magazines only pay an author by giving two free copies away. The most I've received is $40 for a story in a literary magazine. I've received hundreds of rejections over the years--but also acceptance.

Most people reading this have never heard of any of these journals and may wonder why anyone would open themselves to rejection for so little reward? That's because it's one way to learn how to write contemporary literary stories. I had the occassional editor, in fact, write how close my story had been to being accepted, and he would explain what had not worked. I learned, and these editors then published future stories of mine.

Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."

He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. "They don't make money. Write a novel."

So I went on to write a novel, "The Brightest Moon of the Century," which that very agent loved, and he took me on.

Still, I had a collection of short fiction and the so-called traditional business model wasn't working for me. This is where a friend told me, "Hey, you were in publishing. You know how it's done. Why don't you start your own company and publish your book?" I told him he was nuts, that I didn't have that kind of money, but he went onto explain print-on-demand and a company called Lulu. I hadn't heard any of it. I tried it. I did what I'd learned when I worked for a publisher. Even though my stories had been previously published, I wanted these stories tight and in the right order, so I hired an editor. I also hired a graphic designer. We created "The Middle-Aged Man and the Sea." I went to Expanded Books, a well-known book video maker and said, "You've never made a video for a short story collection--how about experiment with me?" They made me a great deal. I also hired a New York publicist. The book received great reviews--the first in the Los Angeles Times--and has won an award for best fiction of the year (2006) from a literary web site.

I'm not suggesting this as a business model for everyone, either. I was new at this. I only knew traditional publishing, so I did what a publisher would do. I've come to embrace the do-it-yourself approach, though, and recommend to anyone to at least use an editor. You can't be an objective editor of your own work. An editor will keep egg off your face.

You, Joe, Lee and a few others here may have enough of a name and resume that at some point you, too, may realize that if a traditional publisher doesn't offer you a good enough deal, you can jump into the market yourself. Yes, you'll have to fight people who think anything self-published must be dreck, but there are others willing to hit the sample button on their Kindles to try you out. Heck, try one of my two short story collections out.

--Chris

[Jack Kilborn]

You may even be thinking that some of the publishers who had rejected you were wrong--unless of course you're laughing and saying something like, "Those Kindle users--they'll buy anything." I doubt you're saying that, though.

Were they wrong? That's a tough call. They certainly didn't think they could make money on them, so it was right for their company to reject those books. The fact that I am making money means the public has a different opinion.

I'm fond of saying that just because something is publishable doesn't mean it will get published. I believe the books I have on Kindle were publishable. But up until Kindle came along, I really didn't have a viable way to exploit the rights.

It's doubtful I'll convince you to drop your agent and publish only through iUniverse and Kindle.

I may reach that conclusion on my own. This is a journey, and things change. I don't know everything, and try to keep an open mind.
 

I started this note because you mentioned business models, and you seem to assume I or anyone independently publishing has a mistaken business model. Rather, I argue, you're mistaken in assuming such a thing.

I think it's a mistaken business model for the overwhelming majority of self-pubbed authors. I'm guessing you'd agree. If you're the exception, do you really want to advise authors to follow in your footsteps? Especially having read the crap that the majority of self-pubbed authors produce?

He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. They don't make money. Write a novel."

He's 100% right. They don't make money. I've seen this over and over and over again.

So I went on to write a novel, "The Brightest Moon of the Century," which that very agent loved and took me on.

You're already ahead of 99.9% of other self-pubbers because you have an agent and have been published by respected journals. So you're not giving me anything to argue with.

[MariaESchneider]

Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."

He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. They don't make money. Write a novel."

  (From Meeks))

Yup, that's true.  In "Sage" I had already found a publisher for the first story.  But the other 3 I wrote were too long for any magazine to touch, even the online ones.  I can't tell you how many people have told me they wouldn't sell.  But they've been selling more copies than the novel I have out on Kindle.  Is it price?  Subject matter?  Cover? I don't know, but I am glad to have a venue to publish them.  I think the money for short stories is limited.  But I'm also hearing from Kindle readers that short works fit the Kindle model pretty well and they imply that they are reading them/buying more of them than in the past. 

Self-publishing is not a cure-all and it isn't an answer for everyone.  But neither is traditional publishing. There are some works that fit one model better than the other.  Traditional publishers can and do provide a "stamp of approval" that makes many buyers feel better about a purchase.  Self-published books, with their often lower price, provide a lot of buyers with a willingness to "try it."    Does the work still have to have a minimum quality level to continue selling?  Yes.  Is there room for both models?  Right now, yes. 

If publishers ever figure out that they would sell more by lowering their ebook prices, it will hurt Indie publishers because then the publishers would have the "stamp of approval" and a low price--making them appear on the surface to be the best deal going.  Luckily they are too stubborn to do that.  It's people like Joe and self-publishers that are willing to try things that are going to carve out a niche. 

[Lynn ODell]

I'm fond of saying that just because something is publishable doesn't mean it will get published. I believe the books I have on Kindle were publishable. But up until Kindle came along, I really didn't have a viable way to exploit the rights.

I think the authors who publish to the Kindle think the same way. They all believe their work is 'publishable', so they publish it. Period.

Do I think all of the Indie books I review are publishable?  Heck, no!  I have waded through much of the garbage you talk about. I have seen books that I turned down for even an Honorable Mention in my blog go up in sales rankings on Amazon just because the authors keep advertising. So, sales rankings are not a good indicator at all. People will buy a Kindle book just because it's $.99 and many will not bother to post a review if they couldn't read it simply because, hey, it was only $.99. The reviews that do get posted are a good indicator as long as you can tell which ones are legit, i.e. not by friends, relatives, or fellow authors doing it as a mutual favor.

My rating scale would read more like this (with some exceptions) for authors:
5 Stars - Wondering why the heck a publisher hasn't picked it up. It may need some minor work.
4 Stars - Needs some moderate to major editing, but still a great start and should be represented by an agent who might be able to get an editor to get it ready.
3 Stars - While I enjoyed it, the author should probably do some major overhauling prior to even considering trying to present it to a publisher/agent.
1-2 Stars - Can quite honestly see why it has been rejected, if that is the case.

By 'editing', I am not referring to grammar/spelling, but to content.

It think everyone knows by now that I not only pull no punches, but I also do not 'favor' or 'disfavor' authors' work based on how I feel about them personally. That's my stand on presenting honest reviews. There are authors here that I feel like I want to go hang out and drink with and there are others that have just been downright rude, but they get an honest review, regardless.

I didn't know who Eric Christopherson was when I found his book. I was just surfing Amazon. But, it was wonderful!  Deserved each of the 5 stars. I will not be at all surprised when he gets a publishing contract.  

And..If I helped in that with my review, my time is justified and well spent.

But, as a reviewer, I am NOT always right, just like publishing companies are NOT always right. There is always a personal opinion involved.

[Betsy the Quilter]

Wow, I went to the doctor's for a test and there's too much here to read!  Still catching up...

Jack, just wanted to let you know that I'm willing to take your 10K to buy books and let you know how I liked them.  

Betsy

[Lynn ODell]

I'd love to give you $10,000 and send you to iUniverse and tell you to buy a bunch of books and prove me wrong, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to.

Can I have that in an Amazon Gift Certificate, instead?   

I don't think the percentage is anywhere near as high as 99% garbage.

Just a quick bit of math on my blog reviews seems to be my rating 28% of Indie books at 5 stars and another 28% at 4 Stars.

Now, that does not include the Indie books that I have passed over because I couldn't even get started or the ones that were good, but not to my taste, that are listed as Honorable mentions. So, some up and down adjustments need to be made.

Of course, some of that is due to the fact that I pick and choose based on descriptions. Your experience was having to read whatever was sent in. 

[pidgeon92]

Chances are every book you've ever read and loved--some which may be the reasons you decided to become a writer--are all traditionally published.

Considering that self-publishing used to be rather expensive, and getting self-published works to market was difficult, this is an easy assumption to make.

I would like to add an anecdote.... The only reason I found/read Crack-Up was because of Red Adept's thread about it in this forum. Based on her recommendation, I read the sample, enjoyed it and bought the rest. I added it to my Shelfari page, to which I had to go through the lengthy process of setting up the book since it did not appear in the search, which is something I am usually too lazy to bother with. Then I did something else I rarely do, I reviewed it on Amazon. I also recommended it to another member here, who told me they bought the book. It is this kind of word-of-mouth that will make successes of quality self-published authors.

[Reeses_Addict]

First off let me say that I am a late comer to this very interesting argument.  Although i agree with Jack on a few MINOR points, particularly about expensive vanity presses,  I believe him and his arguments to be outdated.  Being a newcomer to this industry, and being young enough to not be as biased about past traditions, I have jumped into this game strictly digitally; ie self-published via ebooks under my real name for mainstream fiction and under a pseudonym for my "other" works.


Jack, under my pseudonym (and no it is not Reese's Addict), I publish BDSM erotica.  Could you please tell me which publishers are going to put my works into Barnes and Noble's brick and mortar stores.  Even if I did get a "legitimate" publisher, the best I could hope for is on a rack in the back of sex shops.  Then, how do you market?  Most people are ashamed of their fetishes and avoid buying what others refer to as porn in public.  However those same people will order off of the internet all day long.  Now, I can market in the previously mentioned forums, posting under that identity and provide them an easily clickable link to sample and/or purchase my work.  I think you have to admit that for non-mainstream works, self-publishing via ebooks is the best method of reaching the most people. 

As for being a professional writer, here is my definition.  If someone I don't know, and who has never read my work, buys my book, that does not make me professional, just lucky.  If that same person, after reading that first book, hunts me down to buy another, then I consider myself a professional writer.  I know that I am a professional writer because that is where I am at.  I know that my sales have not been to family and friends because I have not told any of them what I am doing.  I wanted to avoid that very situation and get sales numbers based on true customers.  I don't want those sales and would happily give them copies anyway.

Crap, every time I try to post, there are more new replies.  I cannot type that fast.

[MariaESchneider]

One other point about traditional publishing--and this does not negate the "minimum quality" statement, as I agree with that in general.  First:

quote:

I think Kristin: You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.

Joe: That smacks of disdain for the very industry you're striving to become a part of, and also comes off as rather nearsighted.

end quotes

Actually I don't think she meant it disdainfully. The truth is, I was a reviewer for several years and there was a very large percentage of stuff I did not want to read, all traditionally published.  I got sent stuff, I requested stuff--it was all free.  What I found is that I only wanted to read a VERY small percentage--even of books that I initially was excited to read.  There are SO MANY BOOKS out there.   If someone just dumped BN books on my doorstep, I wouldn't take money to read them either.  I found myself turning books DOWN as a reviewer because while there may be a minimum quality standard...that doesn't mean I want to read just anything dumped my way no matter who publishes it.  

After the initial euphoria wore off (FREE BOOKS!!!!!!) I started to get awfully choosy.  Some of it is subject matter, but some of it quality as well.  There were some books that were rife with errors (usually small publishers; we were not allowed to review self-published books).  There were some major publishers that had...some rather glaring mistakes (usually one or two-again that quality gate.)  There are big-name authors that are big-name enough to not allow editing.  Sure they are exceptions.  And yeah, IMO it usually means a longer book and one that could have had some boring parts taken out.

So it all boils down to--Thank God the market is changing.  Thankfully there are people willing to look at Indie books.  It is going to force publishers to rethink pricing, to rethink distribution and in the end it's going to be better for readers (I hope.)   I think there are small publisher right now that rather than spend money printing, test the waters with ebooks.  If those publishers gain a quality reputation, it's going to help readers and writers by changing the market for the better.

[AnnaM]

I haven't sold any books to friends or family. Zero. I didn't even tell them I had books on Kindle until recently, and none of them own a Kindle (or iPhone).  

So . . . strangers are buying my books, and a respectable number are buying the sequel (priced at 3.99 -- not .99 or 1.99). At the higher price I'm guessing they liked the first book enough to purchase the second.

Are the books "great" or "good" or "perfect" or "industry standard"?  They haven't been through the big house publishing process, but the reader knows that when they purchase (if they read the publisher info).

Many good writers don't see the light of day in my genre because, as one recent rejection letter stated, "as you know, the space is crowded in this genre." I realize they have to protect their current stable of writers from competing titles. That's ok, it's the way the game is played.

The great thing about Amazon is that a virtual store isn't limited to 20,000 square feet.  There's room for everybody. It's free to publish there, so why not use it as a test market?

[Carol Hanrahan]

Whew!  It took me a long time to read all this.
I majored in math in college, so long ago.  So maybe that influences how I look at this discussion.
Indie publishing means more books getting out there.  More books means a better chance of more gems.  How many "To Kill a Mockingbird"s never got published in the past by traditional methods and perished because of it?  Perhaps passed up by many publishers and an author finally giving up. We'll never know.  But now, there's a better chance of those gems surviving.  That makes me happy.

[LeeGoldberg]

People are reading opinions into my messages I didn't express nor meant to imply. So let me make my case one last time, as clearly as I can.

When I talk about "self-publishing," I am talking about going to the expense of printing your unpublished novel in book form, publicizing it, and hustling it on your website, to your family, at booths at book festivals, and out of the trunk of your car.

Self-publishing your unpublished novel is, 9.9 times out of 10, a costly and humiliating mistake. You will not make back your money and you will likely do more damage than good to your career. The odds of actually becoming an acclaimed, respected, and widely read professional writer by self-publishing your rejected manuscript is about the same as finding buried treasure in your backyard.

I am not saying you should give up being a writer if you are met with constant rejection. What I am saying is that you will be far better off -- creatively, financially, and professionally -- if you put your rejected manuscript in a drawer and write another book instead self-publishing it.

I am not saying that every book that's rejected by publishers and agents is a steaming pile of crap. However, you might want to honestly ask yourself why your book is being rejected...is it really because NY agents & publishers are old-fashioned, narrow-minded, bean-counting, creative cowards...or you don't know the right people or the secret passwords...or the system is geared to make money and not art... or the system isn't able accept something as brilliant and original as your work....or that nobody in the mainstream can appreciate your brilliance?

Or could it be that maybe its your work that is flawed in some way...or that you just don't have the talent, skill, or voice yet to make it as a writer? It's hard to accept that possibility, but rather than self-publishing what may be a substandard book...you might be better off trying to see the manuscript the way others have and learning from the experience...perhaps rewriting it, setting it aside, or going back and learning more about your craft.

On a slightly different subject...

Ebooks still make up a tiny percentage of books sales...but they have dealt, I think, a blow to the vanity presses and have at least taken the financial risk out of self-publishing (if you want to call it that). That's a very, very good thing. You can now make your unpublished manuscript widely available through the Amazon Kindle Platform, Smashwords and Scribd. If you have your heart set on self-publish, I would urge you to go that route and NOT to throw away your money on POD or other printing methods. Beside being a greener alternative, it's also a lot cheaper.

But don't do it thinking you're going to reach a wide audience, earn critical acclaim, or have sales anywhere near what Joe Konrath is enjoying. Or that it will lead to a career as a professional novelist. Very few unpublished novelists are earning the kind of money form their e-books that Joe Konrath is with his...and it is very, very, VERY rare for Kindle sales to lead to a publishing contract. And while reviews from readers and bloggers like Red Adept are nice, and make you feel good, they will never match the impact, influence, or notice that a review from a publication like Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, etc. will generate in terms of sales or respect. And those critics aren't reading self-published work on the Kindle.

Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free may be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).

[Jack Kilborn]

However, you might want to honestly ask yourself why your book is being rejected...

I wish I'd said this.

In the case of the short stories I have on Kindle, most of them weren't rejected--they sold to magazines and anthologies.

In the case of the novels, two of them were rejected because they mixed-up genres. No publisher who read them thought they could effectively market humorous thrillers. The other two were shelved by my agent, because she considered them tough to sell (one was a medical thriller, the other a men's action novel, neither of which seem to be around much anymore except for the major bestsellers) so they never did get rejected by NY publishing.

My early novels--the ones that were rejected by hundreds of agents and publishers--will never see the light of day, because they aren't good enough. I didn't think that at the time. I only realized it after honing my craft allowed me to recognize my early mistakes. Had I tried to self-publish those, I don't think I'd have had the success I've had, either in print form or ebook form.

[LeeGoldberg]

You'd think if you want to help people understand the publishing industry and the difficulty of having their writing accepted, one way to do that would to be to encourage them to self-publish something.

No offense, but that is exactly the line that vanity presses use to talk people into throwing their money away. And it's a myth. Worse, it's damaging.

There is almost nothing...let me underscore that, nothingyou can learn from self-publishing that will help you in the real world of publishing. Because when you work with real publishers, they pay YOU for your book and bring a myriad of professionals to the task that you don't have when you go POD or format your book for e-sales. A real publisher provides you with experienced, and highly skilled editors, proofreaders, designers, sales reps, publicists etc. to shape your book into a professional product...and then they go even further, they get your book to distributors, bookstores, and retailers of all kinds, nationwide.

What you will learn from self-publishing, self-editing, and self-promoting as a self-taught author and publisher, are more likely to be bad habits and amateurish conduct rather than any useful skills or behaviors...and those things might actually work against you if you are ever lucky enough to enter the professional side.

That way, their first "amateurish crap" is out there where no agent or editor will see it, the author will learn something about the process and about rejection (maybe) from readers, and when her or his next, and better, work is done, they'll be able to go into the querying process with a greater understanding of it all.

If nobody is going to see it, that what is the point of self-publishing?? And if you haven't learned anything from being rejected by agents and editors...what do you think you're going to learn by being rejected by readers?? And what could you possibly learn from self-publishing that will help you with a query letter??
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the logic.

[LeeGoldberg]

Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."

He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. "They don't make money. Write a novel."

Chris,

That simply isn't true. My brother Tod isn't a big-name author, he's no T.C. Boyle or Stephen King, but his second collection of short stories was just published and he's on a nationwide book tour right now. And publishers are already asking him for another collection. Publishers do buy short story collections. New ones come out every week. I know, because I see them reviewed in PW and the LA Times. I know because publishers have bought short story collections from some of Tod's students.

You know how Tod got his agent? By writing short stories. Agents read the top literary magazine and journals, looking for original voices and undiscovered talent. While it's true Tod's first sale was a novel, I have to take issue with your assertion that you can't get an agent from your short stories or sell a collection of short stories to a publisher...or the implication that self-publishing is the only avenue left for short story collections.

Still, I had a collection of short fiction and the so-called traditional business model wasn't working for me. This is where a friend told me, "Hey, you were in publishing. You know how it's done. Why don't you start your own company and publish your book?" I told him he was nuts, that I didn't have that kind of money, but he went onto explain print-on-demand and a company called Lulu. I hadn't heard any of it. I tried it. I did what I'd learned when I worked for a publisher. Even though my stories had been previously published, I wanted these stories tight and in the right order, so I hired an editor. I also hired a graphic designer. We created "The Middle-Aged Man and the Sea." I went to Expanded Books, a well-known book video maker and said, "You've never made a video for a short story collection--how about experiment with me?" They made me a great deal. I also hired a New York publicist.

It sounds to me like you spent thousands of dollars to self-publish and promote your book. Now tell me, how much of that investment have you made back in book sales? My guess is that you haven't even come close...but I would love to be wrong.
Whether you earned back your investment or not, how many writers can afford to do that? And how many times? And what kind of business is that? Can you really say that the self-publishing with POD model is working better for writers -- creatively, financially and professionally -- than the "traditional" business model? I sure don't think so.
 
Lee