This article gives a valuable insight into the nature of the publishing industry:
http://ecclesiastes911.net/publishers_rejected_classics_in_disguise/
I would not put anything other than my best efforts at writing in front of readers. If you self publish something and it is pure dreck (as it usually is), why should I read anything else you write? Self publishing drives me crazy sometimes because it often becomes all about the writer. Or the person trying to pretend they can be one.
Good writing is supposed to be about the reader. I am a reader. I love almost nothing more in life than a really good book. I don’t want to waste my precious time reading garbage just so someone can claim to be an author.
What is wrong with working on craft first? Attending writer’s workshops? Speaking with editors and other would-be writers? Thinking about how to make your words work for you? Mastering the contents of the Little, Brown Handbook before you do anything else? I understand that a lot of stuff that is published traditionally is pretty awful. Danielle Steel makes me shudder. But the stuff my husband downloads on his kindle is often much worse. Major grammatical mistakes. Plot lines that make no sense at all. Missing or misplaced paragraphs. Just stupid writing from people who should do something else with their lives. He sometimes downloads stuff just for the amusement of gawking.
Why not work hard to polish, polish, polish instead of self-publish, self-publish, self-publish?
I’m going to address this as if you’re speaking directly to me, even if you’re not. 
This makes sense. I don’t self-publishing anything (anything being a full one novel so far) unless I think it’s my best work. But it shouldn’t drive you crazy if people publish crap. It’s pretty easy to tell if something is crap before you spend any time on it. Further, self-publishing really does allow good work to come to light that would otherwise never see the light of day. Imagine all the great unpublished novels in history that burned in fires, sat in cabinets, and languished in the inboxes of editors and agents! I think sorting through the many craptastic self-published works out there is a small price to pay to have the opportunity to read these relatively few gems.
Agreed. I make sure the first few chapters of my book are available for free, so readers can ensure they’re not purchasing “garbage”.
This probably is great advice. I’ve done some of it, but not all. At this point, I enjoy writing so much that there’s no way I can not write, even with a full time job. With every other skill in my life, the best way to improve, for me, has always been by doing, so I think the best way for me to become a better writer is to continue to write.
I agree that there’s tons of crap out there. Hopefully my books don’t fall into this category!
I “polish”, which includes input from friends, family, and strangers, beta-reading and amateur-editing, until I think it’s done. And then I try to publish traditionally. I’m just not going to wait a particularly long time before thinking about self-publishing if agents aren’t interested. Self-publishing is very easy and virtually free, nowadays. What’s the downside for me to self-publish, if traditional publishing doesn’t work?
It’s not an either-or matter. Or at least it should not be.
The work, whether short or long, fiction or non-fiction, specialized or general, should be as “perfect” as the author and editor can make it before it’s even considered for publication. That’s a simple verity that’s been trampled amid the superfluity of no-hurdle paths to “publication.”
Publication should then be done to high standards - the next iteration of “perfect.” While crappy publication of high-quality works is seen as acceptable by some, neither crappy nor quality publication of crappy work does anyone any service.
I’d maintain that quality publication adds to the accessibility, perceived value and other semi-tangible aspects of a quality work, just as having a fine dinner arranged on a plate adds value over being handed it wrapped in a cold tortilla.
The downside? Why put work out there that’s less than perfect?
This is nothing personal. It isn’t. But it is about the easy availability of books – good books at cheap prices from traditional publishers. Why pick your less than perfect work when I can have other books that are far better at the same or less cost?
I can think of five easy and cheap ways to get books. I can get them for free online via the Guttenburg Project. I can get them for free at my local library. I can buy them from my local library for little cost. For under five bucks, on Monday I got:
Becoming Victoria
Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787
Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities
Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and the Saladin in the Third Crusade
Hard Times and Nursery Rhymes: A Mother’s Tale of Law and Disorder
The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648 -1815
and five children’s books. I also checked out four good books for free that I wanted to read.
I can also get them at yard sales and on Amazon for four bucks. I can even go into Manhattan, walk into Book Off and get literally yards of good books for a buck each.
Why should I spend money on something that probably isn’t going to be very good when I have so many other choices to get products that will be?
I put out my work when it is as perfect as it can be. And when the alternative is not putting it out there at all, I’d rather risk putting out something less than perfect – maybe it will catch on. I can never know for sure whether my book is absolutely perfect, whether it’s self-published or not. But if I think it’s as ready as it can be, and as perfect as can be, and the agents and publishers aren’t interested, then I’d rather risk putting it out there than keep it hidden forever.
Well, hopefully my books will find an audience. It may not be you. Hugh Howey’s books weren’t for everyone, of course.
Again, what do I have to lose by putting out my book once I think it’s as perfect as possible? The worst thing that can happen is people not buying it… which is guaranteed if I don’t put it out.
You certainly shouldn’t. Hopefully, the only people that buy my books will be people who think they’ll enjoy it. Maybe people are blowing smoke up my ass, but lots of people told me they liked my first book (and a handful didn’t like it). And my beta-readers so far, including strangers and Dopers alike, are giving me even better feed back for my second book.
So what’s the downside, once my second book is as perfect as can be, if the agents and publishers aren’t interested? I know the chances of being the next Hugh Howey are pretty low, but those chances are zero if I don’t try. And trying costs me nearly nothing. So why wouldn’t I do it?
I’m not sure what you’re taking away from that article (or trying to convey with it) but my conclusion was that the industry has and continues to push for better and better quality writing in all facets of the offered content – style, grammar, market, etc.
In that sense, the little 6th-graders I overheard back in 2001 were very much like the publishing industry:
“I saw Lord of the Rings last weekend.”
“Yeah? How was it?”
“I was okay, but not incredible. I mean it was just D&D on a screen.”
“Yeah, I saw Excalibur on TV once, too. Same garbage.”
“Yeah. You’d think the same guys who made Star Wars Phantom could make a decent adventure movie.”
“Guess not.”
In other words, the problem is that what was acceptable back then isn’t considered acceptable now, either because the plot has been done before (which is true 99% of the time anyway, and certainly true for those classics-resubmitted-as-new tests) or because various other elements have become recycled tropes. We have complained about this every time a James Bond movie comes out; every time any sword & sorcery movie comes out, any time just about anything comes out. [Those kids didn’t have the faintest clue that the RPG was based on Tolkein/Leiber/Moorcock and not the other way around.]
And, in addition to the ‘oversaturated market’ problem mentioned in the linked article and some of the posts above, the publishers also face a problem of unfamiliar markets – what do we do with this manuscript? We can’t fit it in one of our familiar categories so we aren’t sure how we’d market it or to whom.
Ultimately, there’s a tremendous similarity in the arts: Artisans face a whole lot of rejection and have to do a lot of work to hone their skills before their efforts see fruition. As a consumer of those arts – music, literature, film, et cetera, I wouldn’t have it any other way because, like LavenderBlue’s husband, I don’t enjoy wasting my money on drivel that shouldn’t have made it out of a Jr. High grammar class.
–G!
That assumes that books are a commodity and do not have unique content.
If any genre novel is what you’re looking for, may as well pick up a cheap one from a known name. Ditto for a general history of Alabama or a compact biography of George Washington. No need to speculate on an unknown author who self-published when all the sources you list have adequate equivalents.
Most decent self/small-published stuff is not generic fiction or subjects, but very specialized stuff not interesting to big houses. County or town histories, biographies of minor figures, fiction that’s not generically categorizable (or even might be but is a different author from the Dusty Five that Durdenbooks shelves)…
Indy authors trying to compete in such generic categories are probably wasting everyone’s time, their own included. Indy authors who write books no one else can, and self- or small-publish works the Three Sisters won’t bother with (and that can’t stand the years of delay and limited availability of most university-type presses)… well, their time is now.
I’m kind of off-track on why you’re so angry about this. So people self-publish dreck and you don’t like it. So don’t read it. If it’s really bad, nobody else will, either.
Some of us have an inborn drive to tell stories. It’s what makes us happy and keeps us sane. While telling the stories to ourselves is 75% of the joy, knowing that someone else has read and enjoyed it adds the 25% that makes it bliss. If we can throw it on Amazon and sell one copy a week, maybe get one email about it every month, and that keeps us going and happy, what’s your problem?
Edited to add: in fiction-writing, part of getting better is always telling new stories. You can only polish a turd for so long, you know? For every artist and writer, everywhere, every single work is practice for the next work, and no work is ever finished–only abandoned.
Yep. I write books that I hope will bring some joy and happiness to some people, and because it brings me satisfaction, both to do the writing and to get positive feedback. I get negative feedback too, and that’s fine – it can help make me a better writer. If traditional publishing isn’t interested in my work, I’ll self-publish. There’s no downside for me. I suppose some people might be annoyed that something is out there that they don’t think is good enough, but if so, that’s their problem and not mine.
True, but it devalues the field. If some large number of books available from a self-publishing portal are drek that should have never left the writer’s fingertips, much less seen “print,” most people will go away with the idea that there are no quality works to be found in that source. Mostly, they’ll just go away.
I suppose this is possible. But if I think my work is great, then from my point of view this is further reason for me to self-publish (if traditional publishing doesn’t work out) – to increase the value of the field.
Gatekeeping is what traditional publishing houses are for, I suppose.
Decent self published stuff is very, very, very rare.
This.
If you value the art and craft of writing, why shouldn’t you be unhappy when drek is flooding the field? There’s a vast difference between even the worst traditionally published book and most of what is self published.
It’s also flooding many of the writers boards. A significant number of my writer’s boards have been taken over by self published morons who can’t write. Many will never learn to write. Yet they feel qualified to interrupt and (disrupt for that matter) intelligent conversations on the art of writing and publishing. My chosen genre is non-fiction. I know I still have so much to learn. Efforts to learn what I need to have often been derailed by twits who imagine themselves experts because they’ve sold ten copies of a book on Amazon.
At one point, I even got corralled into debate with an anti-vax moron. He’s “published” the most god awful drek on the subject of vaccines on Amazon. How the hell does someone who calls little girls whores when they get an HPV vaccine deserve to be called an author or even heard at all? Am I even allowed to get angry at this?
Sure. But it exists. Hopefully, my stuff is decent. If traditional publishing doesn’t return my calls, then I go for self-publishing – easy, cheap, and the only other option.
I just want to write books that some people enjoy. Some people enjoyed my first book, even if it wasn’t more than perhaps a hundred. That makes my first foray into self-publishing a success, from my point of view.
Eh, “the field” can be defined differently. I am frankly offended by the quality of stuff that gets published by real, live publishing houses, and that ends up in Barnes & Noble, because I’d like to think that real publishers are there to uphold a certain standard.
Self publishing, though? That’s just a distribution tool for the everyman, and it doesn’t pretend to do anything else. One doesn’t browse self-published stuff for fun and entertainment, one does it because one is looking for something specific.
Responding here not just to iiandyiiii’s post, but to the whole discussion so far, but this is a good place to jump in.
I am in a very similar place to iiandyiiii (in fact, we’ve read each other’s first novels :)): I write because I can’t not write. I write because I have people in my head who want their stories told and won’t shut up until I do it. Over the years, I have attended many writers’ workshops, talked to many pro authors and pro editors, had my stuff critiqued by pros (for the last two years I’ve done the ‘read and critique’ at Gen Con Writers’ Symposium, where you read 5 minutes of your work to a panel of pro editors and they comment on it. They uniformly liked it (in fact, I was told “you don’t need to be here” by one of them)). I’ve been accepted into the Stanford Novel Writing program. I’m currently contracted to write a novel in the game world I freelance for.
I’m not saying this to brag–just to support the fact that I’m not entirely deluded about my abilities. I know I can write. I know I’m halfway decent at it. Is my stuff to everyone’s taste? Of course not. Could I get a traditional publishing deal? I don’t know, because I haven’t seriously tried (beyond submitting one of my novels to Angry Robot Books’ Open Call, where it’s currently listed as “in progress,” whatever that means). I also haven’t tried to get an agent. Why? Because I’m impatient. I spend a lot of time polishing my books and making sure they’re the best they can be before I ever let them out even to beta readers and editors. That takes time. The thought of sending books out and waiting weeks or months on top of that to hear back (and, statistically speaking, probably hear a rejection–maybe because the book just isn’t good, but also maybe because they aren’t buying that type of book right now because they just signed something similar…or maybe they’re considering it, but they have so many other books to consider that it’ll take six months to get an answer) doesn’t really appeal to me at this point in my life.
Maybe if I was 20 years younger, I’d be willing to do that…and 20 years ago, it would have been my only option. But right now, I have the ability, the skills, and the funds to give my series a great sendoff–I’m planning to have them professionally edited by an industry “name” (I’ve already talked to him and he’s agreed–we just need to work out when I can fit into his schedule) and to commission pro covers from an artist who’s got a proven track record for creating compelling covers. I’m willing to do this rather than wait an indefinite amount of time for endless queries to come back. Why? Because for me, making a lot of money isn’t a priority. Sure, it would be nice, but if I don’t make back what I spend on editing and cover art…eh. I’m living my dream, sharing my books with the world to see if anybody else wants to hang out with my collection of characters.
And hey, if I’m just deluded and my books suck, people won’t buy them. But if I and the people who’ve already read them and my other previous work are right that they’re fun reads and maybe they might have an audience, then fantastic! More people to share my fun. That’s all I’m really hoping for. Anything else is gravy.
This. From my point of view, this is what is great about self-publishing. Those of us who just want to have fun can, well, have fun.
I have self-pubbed three fiction titles on Amazon and, in nine months, have recouped the copyright fees and gotten a dozen nice reviews. That’s enough.
Writing exclusively for myself, with no convenient way to let people read my stuff? Not so great. A significant part of the self-pubbing phenomenon is that people now have a convenient, portable way to read these documents. They don’t have be scrolling through a Word file, thank Og.
Isn’t a blog an easier way to publish your stories and have access to a wider audience? If you’re just writing for the sake of writing, why not take the easy route?
Maybe. It depends on what you’re writing. I’ve written several fan novels that I’ve posted online, since I can’t sell them because the IP doesn’t belong to me. But for my own novel-length fiction, I self-publish because, while I’m not looking to get rich, some payment for my work is nice, and also because I like the idea of having physical books available.