A Few More Lies For the Ignorant (Part One)

So, having already spoken on the Harlequin mess, wasn't I surprised to find this article over at Self-Publishing Review with a whole lot of nonsense for the price of zero (the post is a guest post, so I don't know how well it reflects what the owners of the site wish to portray, since I am not a regular reader).

I'm not going to do much to touch the author's discussion of science publishing. Not only do we not know who the author is (it just says "guest post" and unless I missed something there is no author named), but he contradicts himself (or herself) in the post by pointing to links where people have done exactly what he/she has said isn't happening (after all, Michio Kaku, one of the leading scientists in the world right now, has publicly denounced self-published science authors for producing nonsense).

Where the author really falls off his or her rocker, is in regards to the backlash from Harlequin's decision to create a vanity press. S/he goes through the four main complaints against Harlequin and says a lot of things that would sound like nonsense to anyone with a brain (or at least a brain that is flipped to the "on" position).

First point:

They are cashing in on their slush pile. The questions implicit in this is that the slush pile is of inherently less value than the accepted pile. There are plenty of reasons to believe this isn’t the case. Most novels have been in dozens of slush piles before they’ve been accepted. Does being in a slush pile mean a novel is inherently bad? Then nothing but Sarah Palin’s book would exist – hardly a ringing endorsement of editorial quality control over cynical marketing exploitation.

First off, there are loads of reasons why book queries get rejected (too many for me to list them here, but you can look that up on your own). Some big reasons are: the book wasn't right for the publisher (try someone else), the query was crap (get better at it), or the book was crap (write another one and try again). These aren't universal, but they are common reasons, and you can't assume that a publisher is wrong. Maybe your book really does suck, or maybe it just isn't a good fit.

Second, the fundamental problem with this point is that the slush pile isn't the rejected pile. It's the "to be read" pile. It is made up of manuscripts that haven't yet been picked up by the editor and viewed. Being in the slush pile means you are just one of many trying to get published by a particular publisher. That's it.

Third, this is exactly what Harlequin is doing: cashing in on their slush pile. Instead of publishing that book legitimately, they want to recommend to authors they reject from their slush piles to head on over to their vanity press and pay Harlequin for the privilege of publication. They aren't recommending the authors go to Lulu, which doesn't require you to pay anything up front for a basic package. They are recommending authors that aren't "good enough" for Harlequin's traditional line spend thousands to get published by their vanity press line, with the fake hope that they might get snatched up by regular-Harlequin in the future if it turns out alright. If you don't see something wrong with this, then maybe there's something wrong with you.

Second point:

They’re exploiting naïve authors. Um, pardon me, but book publishers are expert at exploiting naïve authors. That’s why royalties tilt so harshly to publishers, why rights are exploited, why contracts are mind-numbing. Do you really think most publishers sit down with an author and works out a custom deal while patiently explaining the ins and outs, creating author-friendly options to ensure goodwill, and conceding contractual advantages willingly? How naïve do they think we are?

Actually, royalties tilt heavily towards the publisher because the publisher puts a shitload of money into publishing an author's book. See here for the breakdown for hardcover books. Royalty rates aren't ideal, but books also are no longer the dominant mode of consumption these days, and publishers are forced by consumers to produce a lot of books in order to satiate the wandering tastes of consumers. But trying to say that authors get shafted by book publishers is hardly true of all publishers. If anything, booksellers are the ones getting shafted, since they often have to offer massive discounts just to sell the books at all, cutting into the large chunk they generally would keep at the end of the day.

On the other side of things: this is why most authors recommend you get an agent. Agents are in the business to make you (the author) more money, because the more money you make, the more money they make. This is called mutual interest.

Now, getting to the part about taking advantage of naive authors: publishers are hardly taking advantage. They don't lie about anything (well, some of them have, but this is hardly normal of the business). They tell you straight up that you will be paid for your book (they don't promise a particular rate at all) and that your book will be in bookstores. They hand you a contract that states exactly what you're getting and some of them even recommend getting an agent. Vanity presses and a lot of self-publishing houses do the exact opposite. They paint a pretty picture of their print-model business so that unsuspecting authors will flock in and fork out their hard-earned dollars to print a book that a) will not be distributed in bookstores (though many of them say it will); and b) will likely not sell many copies or make you famous (another thing that many of them say is a good possibility). Lulu is one of the few honest self-publishing firms; they have gone on record to say that they want to sell few copies of millions of titles, rather than millions of copies of a few books. Other places don't do that; they don't tell you what you're going to get for your money.

This is what Harlequin is doing by making promises it can't keep, by saying that maybe, just maybe, your book that you paid them loads of money to print will get picked up by the big boys and published. That's a promise that a lot of people in self-publishing have latched onto, but the reality is that of the hundreds of thousands of self-published authors out there, maybe a dozen of them will make it anywhere at all. That's reality. Harsh? Yes, but reality is rarely full of puppies and flowers.

Point Three:

They’re flooding the market. The market is already flooded. There are more books published by traditional publishers than anyone can stock, review, read, or list. Publishers have not been an effective check on the promulgation of unread works, unsuccessful novels, or unappealing books. In fact, the consignment model makes the flooded market more wasteful and expensive than it needs to be by creating waste from the outset.

Why do you think traditional publishers are producing so many books? A random idiotic desire to flood the market? No. They are doing it because of consumers. Consumers want books, but they also are hard to read. Publishers have to compensate for the wandering tastes of consumers by producing many books in the same genres. Some of them do well; most don't. That said, this point isn't actually all that wrong. Harlequin is flooding the market by going with its vanity press, but the argument stands that the market is fairly saturated anyway, but in a good way. Books are selling quite well, with an understandable lull due to the economy. Personally I think publishers should pull back, but publishers are interested in the average consumer, not me.

Point Four:

They’re diluting their brand value. Well, temptations to joke about Harlequin’s brand value aside, most publishers have an inflated opinion of their brand value. Do readers really care that Random House published that novel? Does that make it more interesting, even if the topic, genre, author, and cover are revolting? Not at all. There is little brand value to dilute. For Harlequin, the cleavage of the heroine and the chisel of the hero are probably more important for sales and reader interest.

Actually, if there's any brand that people do care about, it is the Harlequin brand. When people talk about romance novels, the first thing that comes to mind are the Harlequin romances. We can have a long argument about the quality of such novels, but the entire Harlequin company has developed itself as a romance brand of many shapes and sizes. It has a lot of value that will be lost in attaching vanity press work to its label (even if they changed the name of their vanity press).

Consumers are not as stupid as this point tries to make them out to be (in fact, consumers should be insulted by the assumptions made here). They've been eating up Harlequin books for decades and are well aware of what Harlequin has to offer. Once Harlequin starts releasing work that can be printed by anyone with a big enough pocketbook, then you run into the problem of the name losing its value to consumers. There's a reason why the shoppers at this store frequently ask the store owner if certain titles are self-published: because they actually do care about who prints the books they buy and the quality of those books.

Harlequin has made a name for itself by producing books that meet the quality standards of its target audience (or audiences, since they publish a wide range of work). Now they're telling consumers that they'll let anyone with a few thousand dollars hop on in and poop out a book, even unedited, and that there's nothing wrong with them, a major mainstream publisher, doing so. Well, consumers will notice, authors will notice, and so will Harlequin when the brand starts falling to pieces. It's already on its way down, with multiple author's associations culling the publisher from its ranks.

This isn't the end of the things I have to say about recent discussion about self-publishing, but it's a start. You're welcome to vehemently disagree in the comments. I'm used to it. Death threats can be sent to my email.

Why Almost Everyone Is Pissed About Harlequin

It seems there's some confusion about why just about everyone in the professional world of writing is up in arms about Harlequin's decision to create a vanity press imprint (Harlequin Horizons). I thought the reasons were fairly clearly spelled out by the RWA (Romance Writers Association), the MWA (Mystery Writers Association), and the SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association). Seems I was wrong (a lot of really idiotic, ignorant stuff is being said in support of Harlequin right now, which will shock most people with a conscience).

So, I'm going to spell it out for you to make it damned clear, with a few curse words for effect.

The Scam
First off, Harlequin is starting what is called vanity publishing, which is even worse than self-publishing because it gets the whole production model wrong: the author pays someone else to put together and print their work, then the printer keeps a part of the profits. There's a reason why vanity publishers are so hated by almost everyone except the naive and the stupid. They are perpetual liars on a scale that most politicians would be astonished by, and they have to be, because they essentially are selling services to people that don't need them, and fucking people out of their hard-earned money. Likewise, vanity presses often can't meet the quality that professional third parties or traditional publishers put out. So they lie. A lot. They flower up everything they say about their services and wannabe-writers flock in and drop off their money to be handed a mediocre product that they can't even sell enough of to make back what they put into it.

This is what Harlequin is doing, right down to the lying and flowering bits. Does it seem logical why the RWA, MWA, SWFA, authors, et. al. are pissed off? Here we have a major publisher joining in on the author scamming, and thinking that somehow it's right.

The Lie and the Corporate Mindfuck
Harlequin has really sold themselves on the idea that they're doing something wonderful. After all, publishing is changing, right? All them blasted writers organizations who are there to make sure authors don't get fucked over by scam agents, etc. are just part of some out-of-date old people's cling to the past, right? Wrong. They exist to protect writers on numerous levels.

But Harlequin thinks otherwise. They think that vanity publishing is the wave of the future. That's right. They think something that has been around longer than POD, that has been scamming and fucking people over for decades is the wave of the future. Something sound fishy? It should, because we've heard similar BS before. The difference between what Lulu does and what Harlequin is going to do is that Lulu doesn't lie to you. It tells you right up front: you're self-publishing, and you can do it for free, or buy some of our packages, and we keep a little cut (a real little cut, actually). Harlequin is saying this: you'll pay us shitloads of money and we'll print your book, and, oh, by the way, maybe we'll pick it up for the regular imprints too (we won't really), the ones that get in bookstores and sell lots of books, oh, and you'll have the Harlequin brand on it (but it will be worth crap), so it'll be worth moneys, and, oh, we won't tell you that your book won't be edited by our professional editors (because it probably won't), so we'll just let you pretend it does. To be fair, they changed one of those, now, since the new imprint won't say Harlequin in the name, but that's really irrelevant at this point. Harlequin is doing everything they can to paint this whole thing up like it's the golden beacon of publishing wonders, when it isn't. The closest you can get to that are POD services like Lulu or Createspace, who do a damned good job not pretending to be what they are: places that profit off selling a few copies of a lot of different books, while still giving you a cut and not charging you up the ass for services. Lulu and Createspace have latched onto a brilliant method of printing books that traditionally publishers (with exception to many small presses) have yet to see value in. But that's not what we're here to talk about...

The SFWA and friends are pissed about this because it's damn obvious what's going on: Harlequin is trying to make a profit off of its slush pile at the expense of a whole lot of innocent authors who don't know any better, all while doing very little to make clear what all of that entails. Which is this:
--You'll pay a lot to get it printed.
--It won't be in bookstores.
--It won't sell many copies.
--Unless you're the luckiest damned person alive, it won't get picked up by a major publisher because most, if not all, publishers won't touch it with a 200 mile pole.
--You'll be broke.
--Nobody will actually edit your work, and if someone does, it won't be edited very well.

--You'll be raped by the stigma associated with self-publishing in general, and more specifically the kind attached to vanity publishing (a much less lovable version of the anti-self-publishing vitriol).

Harlequin is literally like healthcare companies who profit off of sick people, making the whole thing super shiny with a nice bow and a whole lot of B.S. to sell it to the masses. The SFWA and friends have rightly called them out for it. They're pissed because they believe that authors should be paid, and not the other way around. And it's a good thing to be pissed about. They don't like seeing authors getting screwed any more than the rest of us. Harlequin's attempts to do everything it can to screw authors is getting everything it deserves for it.

These are the reasons why the SFWA, RWA, MWA, and most anyone with a conscience are pissed off. It's not because Harlequin is cashing in on a self-publishing idea, it's that they're going a route that has traditionally screwed people over for profit. That's what they're pissed about. If Harlequin were trying to pull off a Lulu, the talk wouldn't be so bad. But they're not. They're devaluing the publishing model by allowing something as traditionally respected as the Harlequin brand to be tainted by a horrible practice. This, in turn, fucks everybody, no matter who you are in Harlequin (author, editor, whatever), because slowly, but surely, the Harlequin brand loses value and anyone published by them, traditionally or otherwise, effectively falls into the chasm of crap that some of the worst self-published books currently sit in.

The question for me, now, is why aren't self-publishers of the POD/Lulu/Createspace vein not pissed off as well? Are they just oblivious, or are they just glad to see another beacon of traditional publishing fall into disarray and insanity?

A Reiteration: Books and Music; Lovers, But Not Twins

I am consistently shocked by the persistence of the belief that books (and particularly the book industry) are somehow exactly the same as music (and the music industry). While there are certainly analogous relationships between the two, the idea that consumers view them as the same is absurd.

Let's break this down, because it needs to be made clear that no matter what parallels exist between the two, they are inherently different things.

Point #1 -- Consumption
When you listen to music, you are engaging in a particular form of auditory consumption that requires very little in the way of thought processes. This is not to say that music cannot foster thought, just that the vast majority of people listen to music primarily for effect. The necessity for anything else does not typically exist.

This is not true with books. When you read a book, you are engaging several different sections of your mind. You are using visual thought processes on top of a string of cognitive processes that take in the words and translate them so your brain can make the appropriate visual or non-visual stimuli that denotes understanding. You cannot read a book without also thinking. It's impossible. To put it simply: we read books and listen to music. This is irrefutable. To say that this is not true is to essentially claim that anything we know about human culture and biology is 100% incorrect.

Now, obviously audiobooks change the equation a bit, but only slightly. All an audiobook does is change the visual process to an auditory one; everything else, generally speaking, remains the same, with exception to poor audio quality or annoying voice acting that can ruin the listening process. This leads us into point #2.

Point #2 -- Determining Quality
One of the primary problems with the self-publishing argument for the book/music analogy is that it intentionally ignores the process through which consumers determine quality. As with the modes of consumption, determinations of quality for books and music differ greatly, and this is linked directly to how we consume these two things.

With music, determining quality is typically immediate, with little time on the part of the consumer to create an opinion. Most people have particular listening tastes (such as only liking certain genres) and have different reactions to different forms of music. The result of this is that usually a consumer can tell if something will be enjoyable (of any degree) within the first few seconds (this also varies somewhat depending on the music. I hate country music, so when I hear two seconds of a country song, I tune out; but I don't hate all rock music, and sometimes it can take ten to twenty seconds to decide if I want to listen to any more of a song).

Books, however, require of consumers a considerable amount of time. One cannot, for example, multitask while reading a book (with minor exceptions), and so when a consumer reads a book, they have dedicated themselves to the process. Unlike music, determinations of quality in books are not immediate, and neither are they quick or smooth processes. Bad books are not always determined by the first sentence or even the first twenty pages. Sometimes a bad book doesn't show itself until the end, and getting there understandably takes time. Even if it takes you until the end of a song, chances are it will have taken you only a few minutes, as opposed to several hours.

The only way we currently have of determining quality in books is through editors or reviews; neither are perfect, and usually the latter is useless primarily because personal taste always enters into it--tastes are different from person to person.

Point #3 -- Indie Problematics
Self-published authors often try to claim that because independent music took off, so too must independent writers. The problem is that a lot of the times, these same authors have no idea what they are talking about.

The indie music scene is not a new thing. It wasn't even new when mp3.com and the various other indie music sites appeared. In fact, the independent music industry has been around since the early 1900s, and it has never been quite as non-traditional as people think. The creation of indie labels was not an attempt to allow artists to do whatever they wanted with their music, but simply a way of escaping a system of enormous record labels who wanted too much control; the big labels still exist, and so do many of the indie labels, who have since become rather large themselves. Additionally, true indie music is not nearly as glamorous as people think, and often the instances people cling to as great examples of how "self-publishing" can work are actually of bands/singers who already had enormous followings before going true indie. Some good examples of artists starting indie and being successful do exist, but they succeed primarily because of the first two points in this post.

The book industry, by the way, already has its own indie industry. They're called small presses, and these places publish all sorts of niche literature all across the world. They have editors and marketing teams too, but obviously are not as powerful as the big boys. But where everything falls apart in the self-publishing argument is when they make the assumption that if indie worked for music, it must work for them too. Well, that would be true if the first two points of this post were incorrect. Since they are not, the reality has to be acknowledged: all success in indie music is because of points #1 and #2. Consumers simply do not view music the same as books, and, thus, are much more willing to accept music as a self-published form. After all, a consumer can listen to samples of music and spend only a few minutes of their day doing so; they cannot do the same with books.

What all of these points come to is this: books are not like music, and the only way the indie music scene can function in an indie author scene is if the first two points are acknowledged and addressed appropriately. I'm not sure that is possible, considering that there are not quick and easy ways to make #2 work for books.

Did I miss any points? If so, let me know in the comments. I tried to gravitate towards the most obvious, but perhaps I missed one that should be mentioned here.

Ignorance is Bliss: More Self-Publishing Nonsense

It amazes me the things people say about the publishing industry. I often wonder if there's a magical world that some of these folks live in that I somehow missed the train to get to. It's almost like an anti-publishing psychosis that leads certain individuals to spout nonsense as if it's fact. I liken this sort of staunch, ignorant anti-traditional-publishing/pro-self-publishing-with-lies to FOX News and its continued claim that it's fair and balance, when clearly it's not (it's not really a news organization either, if you want to get right to it, but most of the T.V. news stations aren't about news anymore--FOX is just more loudmouthed about its inaccuracies).

So, when I saw this post about publishers being doomed and why it doesn't matter, I about choked on whatever I was drinking at the time. The post is full of so much nonsense it's like eating a Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly/Rachel Maddow/Keith Olbermann orgy sandwich. Case in point, I give you the following paragraphs (edited down to get rid of the fat):

Yeah? So what. So we lose publishers and book stores. Who cares? The key in Grisham’s statement is where he says, ‘…and though I’ll probably be alright.’ He means writers will be alright. The big scary fact of the matter is that we simply don’t give a tiny damn whether or not a publisher prints a book or an author does. Publishers read, accept, edit, design, print and promote books. At least they used to. I don’t care what anyone tells you, but we do not need the editors. Writers can do that. You write the book and you edit it and you’re done with it. Readers are getting used to reading writers without editors. That’s why blogs are so popular. No editors...No reader cares about Penguin.

There is absolutely no excuse for a writer to work hard on a story, hammering it into existence from nothing, polishing it and making it exactly what he or she wants it to be… and then sit around to wait for some agent or publisher to get back via the U.S. mail so that said writer can be allowed to move on and send out yet another plea for acceptance.

Can you see why I liken this to FOX News? There's so much wrong with this that the only way I can break it down and correct its inaccuracies is to take it to task, piece by piece.

Claim #1 -- Who cares about losing publishers and bookstores? (WRONG)
A lot of people do, including authors. Loss of bookstores means loss of sales. Loss of publishers means authors now have to fork out thousands and thousands of dollars to market their books to even make a reasonable living, while simultaneously fighting off the still legitimate stigma against self-publishing. How many writers do you know who can afford a twenty city book tour across the U.S.? Maybe a few dozen at best, all of them successful because of bookstores and publishers. There are no self-published authors who can meet the financial power of folks like Grisham. None.

Claim #2 -- Grisham means that all writers will be alright (WRONG)
No, Grisham means that he will be alright, which is why he said that he will be alright. Grisham is not a moron. The guy is filthy rich for writing stories that people want. That's reality. If nobody wanted his books, he wouldn't be filthy rich. And when he says he will be alright, he understands that the economy, the way books are being marketed, and the way the publishing industry is changing will ultimate change nothing at all for him. For everyone else that isn't on the same financial tier? They're probably going to suffer.

Claim #3 -- We don't give a damn who prints a book (author or publisher) (WRONG)
If the author actually knew the industry, he'd know this claim is a load of B.S. I don't know who the hell the "we" is, but consumers still care very much about who publishes a book. Authors care too. The assumption in the self-publishing world seems to be that because more people are SPing, that means traditional publishing is losing ground. The reality? The Internet has just made it easier to SP, so more people who might not have done it before because of the cost, are doing it now. That doesn't mean that self-publishing is magically better than it was before POD or the net, it just means that it's bigger because more people can do it. Consumers still pay attention to this and still give a crap about who publishes a book. Sales show this to be true. If this wasn't true, we'd see more self-published books getting the same play as folks like Grisham or Rowling or whomever. Since we don't, this claim is bogus.

Claim #4 -- Publishers don't read, accept, edit, design, print and promote books anymore (WRONG)
Publishers may not be promoting as many books as they have in the past, but they are still promoting books, a lot. In fact, you'd be surprised how many books do get marketing campaigns, however small, thanks to blogging and the like. I regular get emails about books that recently came out that have not be chucked out there like all the big boys. I read some of those books too. They promote books all over the place, but since consumers want more books than they ever did before (even if they don't read them), publishers have to pump out more volumes each year. I don't like it, but consumers do have a lot of power in the book industry.

As for the other stuff: I don't think the author has ever worked for a publisher. I have, and still do. We read, accept/reject, edit, design, and print (well, in digital form) all kinds of books. I mostly do the reading and accepting/rejecting, but I know that someone edits the books and designs them for release. But, then, this whole complaint by the author of the post in question makes no sense when you get to the next section. Why the hell would he care if publishers edit books if he honestly doesn't believe writers need editors? Seems to me that if you don't care about editors, then you also don't care if publishers edit books or just shoot them out there willy nilly. Very contradictory!

Claim #5 -- Writers do not need editors (WRONG)
This statement is so wrong it actually hurts my brain. Writers don't need editors? Are you kidding me? This is like saying that humans don't need oxygen. The only way I can refute this is to show you examples of what is so horribly wrong with this statement. Below you'll see two examples. Any error you see actually exists in the text. If you really want to see the full (or preview) texts for these to confirm how horrible they are, the titles are links to places you can go to read from the source.

From The Patokofus Trilogy: Book One by Ashley Domenic Augustine

The Zoan sewers was a quiet smelly place.
It was filled with rats , alligators and more.
Rats were screeching as they were attacked by a young boy who wielded a bronze sword.
"25, 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30!!" he counted as the rats fell dead to the ground.
An eight year old boy walked in to the sewers.
"Jaden!!!, Jaden!!!" shouted the boy running.
The boy wielding his sword turned to the eight year old.
"Ben what are you doing here?" asked Jaden.
"List was looking for you, she says Ol, Jolly Dex has a job for you, so she sent me to find you she says to meet her at the shop" Ben replied.
"Okay I am done with training for the day" said Jaden as he stretched his arms.

From The New Mars by John L. Manning, Jr.

Tom and Amy get off the jet with their two kids,John and Kimberly, and go straight to the waiting area to wait for the Space Jet to Mars. This is Tom's first time in space, so he read all the pamphlets that were offered to him on the Karman Jet. His wife and kids took the sedatives they were offered at boarding and slept during the three-hour trip to the moon. Tom wanted to experience the flight into orbit that he enjoyed, even though he got sick and needed the bag that was under his seat. He was well informed about space and Mars by the time he got to the moon. When the jet landed at the moon base, Tom woke his wife and kids to a surprise that their feet tended to float. He helped his kids with their moon boots that were weighted books, so they wouldn't float away. Tom's wife Amy had a hard time getting used to the weightlessness of the moon, so she wasn't much help with the kids. Tom suggested that they would just wait in the food court until the space jet to Mars was read for boarding.

I rest my case.

Claim #6 -- Because readers don't care about editors, that is why blogs are so popular (NOT QUITE)
There is a difference between reading a blog and reading a book or a newspaper. Readers are not dumbasses. They know when a product is meant to be edited, and when a product is not. Readers read blogs with this information sitting in the back of their minds. They become more critical when they know that the product they are reading is supposed to be processed and edited in a professional fashion. Blogs are not, generally speaking, done this way, and since readers know that, they know what to expect from a blog.

Claim #7 -- Writers shouldn't work hard and wait on publishers (NOT QUITE)
The part of that statement that bugs me the most is where the author of this piece makes it seem as though you have to wait on a publisher to get permission to start something else. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Publishers actually want you to move on to something else. Why? Because if they buy your product, they probably will ask for first dibs on whatever you have coming next; having that next book started or finished by the time your first book gets published is a good way to keep ahead of the game.

But, to the statement itself: writers should always work hard, period, and waiting on publishers is just the way it works. There's a reason why people still go to publishers: it looks better, you get better products, and you get paid from the start. Rarely are these things not true. Publishers also offer exposure on a level that self-publishing cannot achieve without the author spending incredible amounts of money. Try getting your SPed book into a Barnes & Noble bookstore or Walmart. Not easy is it? Want to know why? Because consumers are not interested in potentially crappy products. They want guarantees. Publishers offer guarantees, and while they do not always deliver, they do have a great track record for keeping consumers happy; this is not true of SPing, and so most bookstores won't carry SPed books precisely because the professional quality is impossible to guarantee.

And that's that. There are other things wrong with the post in question, but it would take a whole series of posts to adequately deconstruct every single incorrect assumption placed there. For now, this should do reality justice.

If any of you have read the piece, please feel free to give me your opinion. The comments section is always open for thoughts!

Reality Check: The Average Consumer and Books

Reality: The average consumer spends roughly 8 seconds looking at the cover of a book before deciding to pick it up and 15 seconds reading the back cover (or inside cover) before making the decision to buy it.

Some of you might wonder who this average consumer is. Most of you reading this blog are likely not part of that category. Average consumers are predominately those who engage in impulse buying, who generally browse quite literally by gut and "random" instinct. They are not likely to spend hours deciding if they want a book, because they either don't have the time or the patience to do so. As such, the average consumer does not read loads of reviews, nor do they read excerpts--they may look at reviews briefly to see the star rating, but beyond that, anything considered "extra work" by said consumers is firmly in the realm of the less-than-average.

Knowing this, it's not hard to understand why it is that so many books that become "bestsellers" tend to be of the mainstream vein, and thus, more simplistic in their prose stylings. The fact is that average consumers are not interested in reading as a product of effort; they want to be entertained. These people are the same folks who have, for so long, found television and films to be exceptional objects to spend time on, and also who the majority of the less "serious" film productions are geared towards.

But you shouldn't be put off by this. Average consumers are what keeps the book, radio, TV, film, and music industries alive. Without them there would be no Elvis, no Stephen King, no Howard Stern, and no Star Wars or Star Trek. These individuals, while perhaps now considered in a more critical light, have always been firmly in the realm of the average consumer precisely because they are entertaining. And entertainment isn't a bad thing. Those who think that literature should be only about art are also those who are upset that what has made literature so much more acceptable and popular today and in the past are those genres and prose stylings that are more easily received by average consumers.

The fact is that most book consumers are not those who are likely to read Salman Rushdie or Ernest Hemingway; while some certainly do, perhaps by a stroke of luck in seeing more "literary" works on the bargain shelves or in a pretty new cover, these instances are, more or less, flukes. Salman Rushdie may actually be a poor example here, too, since much of his popularity occurred after writing The Satanic Verses, which earned him the rank of most-hated-man-by-extremist-Muslims for a while, giving him plenty of free press.

But why is any of this important? Because if you expect to do anything within the book industry, such as selling short stories or your first novel, you need to understand how the market works. You can be the best thing since sliced bread, but that means nothing to the average consumer, because ultimately what catches their interest is what will entertain them. This does not mean that you should write to the market; anybody who says to write to the market is essentially mentally defective. What this does mean is that you should be well aware of how the market functions before you become published. Write what you love, but don't pretend that you know who the consumer is, and that you have the right to make demands upon them, or get mad at them when they don't buy your novel in droves. The average consumer doesn't care about you. They control the market. They will not do extra work for your incredibly complex, amazing novel; that work belongs to a different demographic of more astute, cautious readers.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: the consumer is not your bitch, no matter what kind of novel you write. They are not obligated to read excerpts or to go out of their way to do what you want them to do, and most of them won't, ever. The average consumer is far more likely to pick up the next Stephen King novel, knowing that it will suit their needs, than spend twenty minutes or an hour reading up on your fantastic new novel. But, who knows, you might get lucky and become the next Stephen King or Tom Clancy or Dan Brown (or *insert your favorite bestselling author here*). It happens, but only to a handful of authors in a bloated industry of debuts.

(A lot of this is directed to self-publishers, who need to understand the market and why they must always fight tooth and nail to get even a little leeway--and also why it's pretty much impossible for self-publishing to effectively change the course of the industry without essentially altering bookstores; that probably won't happen until there is a way to determine quality and if self-publishers can offer the same guarantees to bookstores as traditional publishers. A lot of folks I talked with before seemed to have a perception of average consumers that is inconsistent with reality. While it's nice to delude oneself with imaginative constructs of consumer culture, such delusions are not reality. This doesn't mean you can't do well self-published or published by a small press, or published with a particularly niche book; it just means that most of the market won't know who you are or care. Trying to change that is probably a losing battle.)

Thoughts On Taking Criticism

These last few days have put a lot of interesting thoughts into my head, particularly on the issue of how to take criticism. I consider this to be a writer's best skill aside from talent, because how you react to what others say about you or your writing will have an influence on how you are perceived by others, and will say a lot about who you are as a writer. Take my recent discussion and criticism of self-publishing and the dozens of responses there (some of which have been removed by one of the authors, which I have saved primarily because they were interesting, particularly in this discussion here).

What is interesting about that particular post are the kinds of reactions taken against what I wrote: some were relatively calm and collected and were more interested in debating the issue, some were vehemently opposed, so much so as to make personal attacks, and then there were some who seemed to be unclear on how they wanted to react, deleting posts or generally making rude comments and then attempting more rational discussions elsewhere (and these are general observations, not hints at particular individuals)

There is only one individual who has had any useful impact on me in this discussion. This person has acted in a way that I think should be a model for people in that particular industry (with some minor exceptions, which are mostly irrelevant). Instead of attacking me personally for my criticisms of an industry s/he ardently supports, s/he debated me on it, seemingly attempting to get at the crux of the issue. To be fair, I find myself agreeing very much with this individual on many points, and disagreeing with her/him on others, and s/he seems more like the kind of person that could change my mind on the issue of self-publishing than many of the others that have been a part of the discussion. Why? The mostly level-headed approach and the ability to tackle the issue without resorting to reducing discussions to the I'm-high-and-mighty form, or feeling the need to make unsubstantiated claims of validation, etc.

And this is interesting, because it says a lot about how this individual was able to take the criticism, and how writers should take criticism in general. The reality is that no matter what kind of writer you are, you are going to get criticized. Even great writers get hit with negative comments. They either shrug them off, get irritated and blast the critic, or let it consume them from the inside out. And published, successful writers have exhibited all of those reactions; some of them get away with the more nasty comments, and others don't.

Those that react negatively, who attack or let criticism consume them, are those who probably shouldn't be attempting to write publicly in the first place. It hints at an insecurity, a deep fissure within the self that suggests how mutable an individual can be in the face of a negative comment. And reactions do have weight on how one is perceived. I think, here, of the Cole A. Adams story, in which an author got so upset about being criticized that he basically goaded the critic into committing suicide. Obviously that hasn't happened here, but there certainly have been some bitter, angry individuals who have seen fit to make personal attacks instead of either ignoring the criticism or tackling it in a more level-headed manner. And like Mr. Adams, these aren't people I could see myself ever working with, even if I were more interested in the industry they support.

But I don't suspect most of them care about that, much like Mr. Adams probably doesn't care that a lot of people no longer want to work with him (or maybe he does). The point is that criticism doesn't go away because you get upset about it; it remains, always. But if you can't take the criticism, why be in a particular industry at all, whether it be music, acting, or writing? You can't avoid it unless you keep yourself private and never let your work be viewed by people who may potentially criticize you for it.

But maybe it's just me. Maybe it's okay to react in the way that some authors have in the past. What do you all think? Where do you draw the line between acceptable behavior and acting childishly?

Self-publishing Redux: The Good Books Three

In the aftermath of my criticism of self-publishing I thought it would be a good idea to point out some of those self-published books that I have enjoyed. Since no further introductions are needed, I'll just dig right in:

The Dark Dreamweaver by Nick Ruth
By far one of my favorite self-published fantasy novels. With a cast of bizarre and fascinating characters, this one gripped me when I first read it years ago and it's been in my library every since. It's the kind of book I can see reading to my future children (when or wherever they happen to spring up).
You can find my review of it here (warning: this is an exceptionally old review)

The Tales of Tanglewood: The Lon Dubh Whistle by Scott Kessman
I guess it's somewhat strange that two of the best self-published books I have read also happen to be novels meant for younger audiences. Still, Kessman's work is fun, a bit quirky, and magical; it's another one of those books that I'd love to read to my kids one day. We'll see!
You can find a link to my review here.

Honeycomb by Israel Del Rio
The one adult novel that I found to be quite remarkable. While it's not a perfect book, it's premise is fascinating and the writing is generally pretty strong. Contains some interesting examinations of the afterlife and the complicated relationships between a series of connected individuals. Certainly worthy of a good read, in my opinion.
You can find a link to my review here.

There you have it! Evidence that I don't hate all self-published novels. Have any of you read any particularly good SF/F novels that were self-published? Let me know in the comments!

Self-Publishing: A Clarification (for those who don't know)

Apparently I've raised a tiny bit of a stink over self-publishing based on what I said here, particularly with folks who apparently are not familiar with my full position on self-publishing, which had no purpose being reiterated in that post. So, to make things more clear on my position, I give you this list of points:

• Self-publishing is not the same as traditional publishing.
• Self-publishing does not deserve unearned respect. Why? Because anybody can self-publish, and for free these days. You wouldn't give unnecessary respect to someone who ate a carrot, would you? That's essentially what is being asked of folks like me, that we should respect the process unconditionally, when there is no difficulty in said process. Self-published authors must earn the respect, and that often means through persistence and hard work; even then, there's no guarantee.
  
• Most self-published novels are crap. That's reality, not just a talking point. You can cite a dozen novels that are exceptions, but that still does not change the fact that the vast majority of self-published novels are not worth the paper they are printed on.
• When I say that they are crap, I am specifically talking about the quality of the writing: typos, grammar, style, etc. One could argue endlessly about the merits of plot or character, but when it comes to the quality of the writing itself, there are few, if any, arguments. Crappy writing is crappy writing.
• Self-publishing is not legitimate. If it were, then you would be able to cite authors who have been successful doing it. But there are basically none. No, Paolini, Scalzi, and the handful of others you could cite do not count primarily because they didn't become successful, bestselling authors due to self-publishing, but due to being picked up by legitimate presses, which put them in bookstores. There are no bestselling self-published authors, only bestselling former self-published authors. If the form were legitimate, said folks would still be doing it, because why would you bother working with a traditional publisher if you could be just as successful by yourself?
• Self-publishing will not be legitimate until such time as a filtering system can be put in to weed out the overwhelming majority of garbage. To expect the consumer to figure this out on their own is not only rude, but unacceptable. The consumer expects a certain level of quality in a published work and self-publishing, unfortunately, has not met that demand and won't until someone can figure out how to make it clear which self-published books are worth spending money on.
• Telling the consumer to read excerpts to figure out if a self-published book is worth buying is essentially asking the consumer to go out of their way for you. The consumer is not your bitch. Their time is equivalent to money, except that they cannot earn it back. This is another reason why self-publishing is not a successful endeavor for the vast majority of would-be authors: because the consumer has no desire to take gambles or waste their time reading excerpts to figure out if a book is worth their hard-earned dollars when they can just hop on over to Borders and find a book printed by a legitimate press that they know will at least be of a certain written quality. The following are the only reasonable demands to make on a consumer:
• To look at the price.
  
• To look at the cover.
• To read the dust jacket or the back of the book.
• To glance inside to see if the writing is in a tense that the consumer likes to read.
  
• Self-publishing is not an escape from an evil corporate publishing scheme, because traditional publishing is not an evil corporate publishing scheme. These sorts of untruths are the kinds of things spoken by bitter writers who couldn't hack it, for various reasons. Vanity presses are evil corporate schemes, and any press that asks you, the author, to pay for the honor of being printed is an evil corporate scheme, even if you're paying for something as simple as distribution or an ISBN. The reality is, if traditional publishing were such an evil thing, some of the most successful authors in history would not be published through them. After all, writers like Stephen King should just as easily be able to make a living publishing their own work rather than dealing with a traditional press, right? The problem is that people who are against traditional publishing are either delusional or sucked into a self-publishing trap and perpetuate the lies shoved onto the traditional platform. These people do a disservice to self-publishing as a whole by misrepresenting what it actually entails and by ignoring and even lying about what traditional publishing offers.
• There are some excellent self-published novels. But one great self-published novel does not make up for an overwhelming supply of filth and wasted paper. With tens of thousands of self-published books being thrust on the public, most of them horrendous, you cannot possibly expect the consumer or anyone to wade through to find the good stuff. When I say good, I don't mean excellent or superb, just good, as in entertaining (gets the job done). This is really the only reasonable expectation by the consumer.
• I do not begrudge anyone who self-publishes. I wish them all the success in the world, but that does not mean that I am not going to point out a harsh reality. You should know what you are getting yourself into when you self-publish.
• I will begrudge those who lie and are deceptive about self-publishing. In particular I am thinking about people who create "presses" in order to publish their own work. This gives the consumer the impression that a work is legitimate, but what it actually does is confirm everything I've said here: that self-publishing is not legitimate, that it has a stigma attached to it that is not unreasonable, and that said author is much more willing to manipulate and deceive the consumer rather than let his or her work stand on its own merits.
  
• Print-on-demand is not a self-publishing model, but a method of printing. It is used by both traditional presses and self-publishing firms. I do not agree with lobbing all POD presses into the same self-publishing bag, because it's not a fair association.

Yes, I acknowledge that some of my harshness in regards to self-publishing is the result of some particularly terrible experiences with self-published novels, but that does not remove the fact that self-publishing is a troublesome endeavor. You can get upset with me all you want, but this is only upsetting because it's reality, and one which is not at all favorable to the self-publishing scheme. If you want to self-publish, be aware of what you will face. There is a wall against it because it has earned itself a black mark in the consumer world. To fight that wall, you'll have to not only assure the consumer that your work is of exceptional quality, but also fight tooth and nail through a forest of spikes and thorns to get on top. And even then, if you make it after fighting and fighting and fighting, you still might fail miserably, wasting your hard-earned dollars on an endeavor that will go nowhere (or not wasting it, if you prefer to think that way).

Reality bites, but it doesn't go away no matter how much you don't like it.

Reader Question: To Self-publish or Not to Self-publish, That is the Question

Blondishnet recently asked:

What are your thoughts on 'self-publishing?' Would you recommend it? And if so, for whom?

This is a good question, the answer to which will not be remotely surprising. No, I do not recommend self-publishing except in the following instances:

• You are writing a family memoir that you only intend family to read.
• You are making a photo book of some sort and have no intention of selling it.

Unless you're creating something that will only be appealing to people close to you, such as friends and family, avoid self-publishing like the plague. The reason? Because it can damage a potential writing career, there are too many companies that intentionally and unintentionally prey on people who don't know any better, and almost nobody fully understands what they are getting themselves into when they do self-publish. But I will elaborate here just a bit.

When you decide to self-publish you need to face the stark reality that you will not only get absolutely zero respect in the publishing community, because you likely don't deserve it, and that most likely your writing will be atrocious--and people will notice. Most people who self-publish do not pay for editing services, and those that do rarely pay for decent editing service, settling for line-by-line work, rather than having someone actually tear apart the manuscript. If you've been rejected by legitimate publishers, you should probably start asking yourself why. Is it possible that you suck? Or maybe your manuscript isn't good enough or still needs a lot of work? This isn't like the short story market where there can often be a flood of good stories that get rejected simply because there isn't space. Legitimate publishers reject novels for very good reasons and very (and I do mean very) rarely do they reject perfectly good manuscripts--yes, it happens, but when that happens you'll likely know about it, which should be an encouragement. If your novel was rejected, you should ask yourself why rather than throwing up your hands and self-publishing.

And here's the thing: self-published authors feel like they should get respect by default, as if being published by a firm like Lulu or Booksurge or whatever is the same as being picked up by Tor or Randomhouse or some other legitimate press. You are not the same as Stephen King, because you have opted to cheat the system, a system which works and which pays authors for their writing. In cheating, you've put out a manuscript that will most likely be seriously flawed, and now you expect folks to take their hard-earned dollars and give them to you because you say your book is good, even though it was not professionally edited, has a crappy cover, and was essentially paid for by you to be put into print by a company that doesn't give a flying fig whether your novel is any good. And that's just it: self-publishing firms DO NOT care if your book is good or utter filth. They want to make a quick buck, and I won't begrudge them that, except where they lie and misrepresent who they are. And consumers generally know this. How they have managed to become smarter than a lot of writers is beyond me, but consumers are not likely to buy your self-published book when they can get one from a professional publisher for the same price, or cheaper, and have some guarantee of quality.

And you can damage your career by self-publishing. You might get lucky and still get published by a real press, but the chances of that are slim to none. Most likely you'll get so entrenched in the self-publishing world, and even bitter about it, that you'll never leave it. In the process you'll lose out on any chance to not only improve your craft, but to also develop a career.

Self-publishing is also manipulative. Yes, there are decent companies out there that do a fine job of not misrepresenting what they do (such as Lulu), but there are also a lot of companies out there that will do everything they can to snatch up your book and make you pay to have it printed. They prey on the unsuspecting author and are the only ones who profit from it.

Be smart about your writing. If you honestly think it is good, don't give up after a few rejections. Keep trying. Just because you're having it rough now doesn't mean you won't get a break later. You won't get anywhere by giving up, and there are a lot of benefits to persisting in the writing world. Self-publishing should only be the answer if you have a certain kind of product, but if you do decide to self-publish your fiction, be fully aware of what you're getting yourself into. Don't expect respect and come to grips with the reality that you will be looked down upon as an inferior author for legitimate reasons. You'll have to work even harder to get anywhere as a self-published author, and if you're willing to put that kind of effort there, why wouldn't you do it in the more legitimate market?

Self-publishing certainly has some benefits (you have greater control of your intellectual property), but again, is it worth it? I say not.

---------------------------

If you have a question you'd like answered, whether silly or serious, feel free to send an email to arconna[at]yahoo[dot]com, send a twitter message to @shaunduke, or leave a comment here or anywhere. If you like this post, please stumble it, leave a comment, or tell your friends! Thanks!

Lit Rant: A Few Thousand People Does Not a Movement Make (Or Why Podcasting Ain't That Great)

One thing that irks me about all these online movements is the people of these movements--particularly the folks who hold some sort of fame--assume that their "successes" have had a legitimate affect on the publishing industry (or whatever industry they are a part of). This is especially so with the podcasting world. Those of us who pay attention to podfiction (and related podcasts) are constantly told that "publishing has changed, and we did it...and so can you." This is disingenuous. Publishing hasn't changed. If that were true we would see mainstream publishing scrambling to pick up the next big podcaster; we would see huge paychecks issued out to existing podcasters and more people than just those who happen to know what a podcast is would be talking about it.

But guess what...this isn't happening. A handful of podcasters have succeeded in getting legitimately published, but they haven't changed publishing in any way. Most of them are published with particularly small presses, which is fine, except that a small press is unlikely to influence the larger publishing presses who actually have a stake in the persistence of the publishing industry as a whole; small presses are not the ones making bookselling a billion dollar industry, and likewise are almost never involved in the grander elements of publishing (can anyone name a small press book that was only published via a small press and was then turned into a major motion picture?). Even the top voices in podcasting are, at best, midlist authors, and, at worst, obscure names who are part of a very selective niche; they have gained notoriety not necessarily as writers, but more as entertainers who wrote a book.

I'm not trying to belittle what these podcasters have done; I only want to put things into the proper perspective, because too many people think podcasting is the answer to all their publishing woes, when in reality it isn't. I have an enormous problem with podfiction authors and the way they represent themselves, because all I see are people being duped into something based on a lie--almost like vanity presses. Most podfiction authors are entirely willing to peddle fantasy without playing the truth card as well. What is the truth?

• You are unlikely to get a particular work published. Ever.
• If you do get published, it's unlikely that a large press will take notice and it's equally as unlikely that you will be successful enough to warrant quitting your day job.
• Most publishers don't necessarily care about a work that has already been put out there, just as they are not likely to snatch up a book you self-published via Lulu (and exceptions have been made, but your chances are next to nil)
• You're not likely to make any money at it.
• You're not likely to build a sizable fanbase. Only a few podcasters actually have this, and most of those folks have been at this for years. Almost all podcasters come in, try it, and fade out of existence, just as anyway, only somewhat more brutally since you put significantly more time into a podcast production than you would if you published a book with a traditional publisher (since the publisher would put in most of the work of actually putting your book into stores).
  
• It's a hell of a lot of work. You can't just read a book and expect people to love it. Quality and content play a big role.
• Podcasting your fiction is not the answer to not being picked up by a publisher. It's also not always the best answer for your writing. Sometimes you just suck.
• Podcasting is self-publishing. There is no difference except that one is print and the other is audio. It's still self-publishing, no matter what title you put it under. Exception is made to already published books that are podcast for promotional purposes (and there's almost never and instance of such a thing that isn't meant for promotion).
• There are no Stephen Kings or Stephanie Meyers' in the podcasting world. None. There are some slightly successful authors, but none of them are selling at the level of the big names in traditional publishing (Grisham, King, Meyers, Rowling, Roberts, Brown, and the hundreds of others who have sold at least 100,000 copies of a single book).
  

Again, I don't want this rant to be misconstrued as a way of belittling podcasting, but I think it is necessary to be harsh on this "industry" because it is so often improperly represented as something that it is not. At best, podfiction has influenced publishing only so much as to make traditional publishers see the value in providing free content to potential readers, but the model of publishing has not changed at all. Major publishers, the real pushers in fiction, are not going to buy a book because they think it might make a good podcast, or because it happened to be a podcast; they are going to buy a book because they think they can sell it and make money on it. That's the most important reason for purchases by such publishers. It's a fact of life: publishers are trying to make a profit, and to do that they need to buy books they think readers will like.

A few thousand people does not a movement make. No matter how much you might think you're changing things, you need to face facts. Sometimes you have no influence whatsoever, and sometimes your influence is not what you think it is. We might look at the gay movement as a good analogy here: the movement was not successful when it was small and immobile, but when the gay community got fed up, they rose up in the millions, and got noticed; now we have five states that have legalized gay marriage. Podcasting has yet to have this movement, and maybe it never will.

It's surprising that podcasting took off in the first place considering how easy it is to find video-based programs all over the Internet. Perhaps the one thing that podfiction has going for it is that it has revived an old style of radio drama, something largely lost to the wee hours of NPR programming. If it persists, maybe we'll see some changes, but let's be realistic in telling the truth about what is going on. The movers and the shakers are not moving and shaking over podcasting. They may be happy about the stuff, but they certainly aren't scrambling to get on the bandwagon.

What do you all think about this? Am I being too harsh? Let me know in the comments!

P.S.: To clarify, I am specifically talking about podcast fiction in this post. Non-fiction programming such as interview podcasts and the like really are simply part of an already-free landscape of audio productions (such as might be found on the radio); the only difference is in the delivery (i.e. via the Internet and download rather than as a streamed program on the radio or elsewhere). I am a huge fan of non-fiction podcast programs, simply because they provide a service that is otherwise hard to find on traditional radio (such as author interviews and the like). But the hosts of such shows aren't really running around saying "Radio is changing and it's because of us!"

Sometimes Your Writing Just Sucks

And sometimes there's nothing you can do to fix it. Mur Lafferty had a post some time ago about tough love and there was one thing she said that I have to disagree with:

My point is that if you write a book, and you can’t get it published, it doesn’t mean the dream is over. It doesn’t mean that you as a writer suck. It means that book wasn’t attractive to agents/editors. It means that perhaps you need to improve as a writer, see your first book as an exercise to make yourself a better writer.

Or it means that you actually suck. I have no problem with encouraging people to continue, to push on and never give up on their dreams, but sometimes some people really should give up on their dreams. This isn't just to save all of us out there from having to deal with them; it's also to save them from the humiliation of constant failure and ridicule. While writing this, I'm thinking about all those examples on American Idol where someone with a vision, with an immense dream comes up against Simon (and sometimes Paula and Randy) and has to face the reality that they are not good enough. Sometimes these failed people throw a fit, proclaiming that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and other times they break down entirely, feeling the immense pain of not rejection, but absolute and total internal destruction.

And I'm also thinking of those folks in the writing world that you meet from time to time that truly believe their self-published novel is really amazing, when in actuality it's one of the worst things ever put into print. These are the folks who cannot take constructive advice, who won't change or get better either because they can't or because they won't. These are the folks that don't need encouraging, because they get enough of it from friends and family that don't have the heart to tell them that they are horrible.

But how do writers know if they really do suck? How do we know when it's time to throw in the towel and stop, because writing really isn't our thing? I don't know. I don't think anyone can really know, but I still take issue with this idea that one shouldn't re-evaluate themselves if they meet complete failure at the hands of publishers. I still feel like we should be careful to encourage people to self-publish, because often times the folks who do so don't realize what they are getting themselves into. Sometimes your novel just isn't good enough to get published.

And that's okay. Really. It's okay for your novel to not be good enough. We call those trunk novels (or stories, for that matter). Sometimes your dream project can be let go. I've let projects go. I've had to. I got to a point where I had moved so far from something that it wasn't worth keeping it alive just to feed that part of me that wanted it to succeed. I could find new things that could fill that void. Not everything you write will get published. That's the honest truth. Sometimes your stories or novels can be put in the trunk and left there, maybe forever, or maybe long enough for you to get enough distance to see what was wrong with it in the first place.

The reality is that sometimes your writing does suck. Sometimes your novel, story, etc. sucks beyond measure. In fact, this is true almost every time. If you get rejected from every editor and agent in the business, maybe you should really think twice before self-publishing, or podcasting, or whatever. Maybe your novel actually is horrible. It happens. A lot. And it's okay. Write something else. Try again. When people talk about persistence being the key to success, this is what they mean. Don't throw up your hands and say, "Well, I couldn't get X, Y, and Z to take it, so I'll just have to self-publish!" Write something else, submit, and keep trying if you honestly believe you have the talent. How many writers in history have trunked a novel only to have it published later after selling something else? Quite a few.

If you really do have the talent, you can get published. You just have to keep going. This is why I have such a problem with self-publishing (podcasting included). It's easy. Really easy. All one has to do is waltz on over to Lulu, format a document, and submit. Maybe that ease of access is a bad thing. And it's not helping self-publishing gain any respect in the world when folks who didn't give up when they should pay for a publishing package or go through Lulu.

Sometimes you just suck. And nothing you do can fix that. Never assume that you will get lucky like the handful of self-pubbed people that have made it "big" (and not even that big, to be honest, since I have yet to hear of any self-pubbed author who has shattered records). There's no such thing as luck in the writing world. There is only talent and persistence (and a few other things that I can't remember right now).

What does anyone else think about this?

P.S.: Yes, I am fully aware that technically I have self-published WISB. The only difference is that I never intended to sell WISB. Not really. It was an experiment that I truly enjoyed and want to keep going not because I want it to make me famous or for it to get into print format, but because it brings me joy. It wasn't rejected from publishers, nor would I send it to them. I have other work that I submit and I'm not giving up on that stuff so long as there is somewhere to send it!

Self-publishing Sucks and Small Presses Rule

Mulluane recently pointed me in the direction of this interesting discussion of the 21st Century Writer knowing full well that I would take issue with some of the points. I've come to learn that the old bat has me pretty much pegged when it comes to talking points. The problem with that post isn't that it's necessarily wrong; on most points it is correct and the 21st Century Writers is largely being defined by the more progressive, technologically impacted forms of promotion and distribution. The problems I have with the discussion involve the author's perspectives of self-publishing and small presses. To start with self-publishing, I'll point to something the author said that made me curl my brow:

I no longer engage in the self-publishing debate since it no longer matters... We no longer have to go through the gatekeepers (agents, editors, and publishers) in order to get what we want out there, to get our voice, saying what we want it to say, heard.

While it's true that writers don't have to go through traditional channels to become a success, the notion that one can become like, say, Scott Sigler, Tee Morris, J. C. Hutchins, Mur Lafferty, etc. is misleading. These folks got, to put it simply, lucky. Yes, they worked their butts off to get where they are--which is still far from the fame of people like Stephanie Meyers, J. K. Rowling, or Stephen King--but hard work doesn't always pay off. There are loads of folks who worked hard, who promoted and poured tears and blood into their work, but ended up getting nowhere. Most self-published authors (whether doing traditional paper versions or podiobooks) fail. This is simply the reality. They may sell a handful of copies or a few hundred, but I think it needs to be made quite clear that sales in the thousands of copies are exceedingly unlikely.

Self-publishing, however easy and desirable for some, is not a picnic. A lot of people seem to think that one can waltz into the self-publishing scene and find success. Most of those folks fail and either disappear or become bitter writers. Factored into this is quality, obviously, something which self-publishing as a whole is constantly battling. Self-publishing is seen as simple largely because one can do it for practically no cost. But it's not simple. One has to market to sell books, and most don't know how. Even those that do know how often learn that marketing is not an exact "science." Sometimes no matter how hard you work, you will fail. It's inevitable. Some people aren't cut out to be writers, no matter how much they or their delusional friends and family think so. Self-publishing is as brutal a business as traditional publishing.

What really killed me about the article, however, is this quote regarding small presses:

And please don’t say the “Small Press.” I’m sure the small press is the answer somehow, but these days the small press is sort of like the independent movie makers. A lot of them are small and independent because they couldn’t make it in New York or Hollywood. So in the end they’re looking for someone young, pretty, and fast the same as the big boys. They care no more about the content in the books they publish than do the name brand publishers.

My immediate reaction was: bullsh*t. Comparing small presses to independent movie makers is a bit of a low blow. First off, most small presses actually do care more about the content of the books they publish than name brand publishers. The reason for this is that small presses tend to be niche markets: some publish short-story collections almost exclusively, while others delve into very specific forms of fiction, whether it be Christian speculative fiction or literary fantasy. Of course small presses want to make money (most of them, anyway), but that doesn't mean that they are interested in simply publishing stuff that will sell thousands of copies. If they wanted that, most of them would have stuck to publishing mainstream fiction, not niche markets.

And small presses aren't at all like the independent film makers who couldn't hack it in the land of the big guys. Small presses are small not because they simply couldn't cut it, but because they serve a very specific and vital purpose in the publishing industry. Major publishers aren't printing a lot of the works that small presses cover primarily because those works will have, by default, smaller audiences. If you were to try to publish an epic poem in today's market, you might find it almost impossible, with the exception, perhaps, to Toby Barlow's Sharp Teeth. Epic poetry is not exactly something that folks look for anymore--and poetry in general, to be honest. Its market is going to be understandably smaller. The small press is able to provide a publishing field for such work.

One of the things the article does a great job pointing out, however is how much the publishing industry has already changed and will change as technology progressively becomes more a part of how authors and publishers have to market the works they put out. In a way, successful self-published authors have a talent that many new authors don't: they've been there and have had to learn from start to finish how to make their work successful without the help of another. It's true that these folks, even if they aren't self-published, will become more important to the publishing industry as the Internet becomes a greater tool for spreading the word and selling books. I disagree that to be an author one has to be popular. To continue being an author, one definitely has to gain a readership, but there are plenty of authors still being published these days that start largely from nothing.

I don't know yet if this is a good thing. Some part of me yearns for the olden days. But perhaps those days are fast becoming a thing of the past. It's sad, but that's what I get for being old fashioned.

Publishing: Your Options and the Pros and Cons

I don't think I've done a post like this before and it occurred to me that many of my readers and folks out in the blogosphere might like a post that looks into the various options for publishing and whether they are worth it. So, for this post I'm going to put together a short list of the various publishing options and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Here goes:

• Standard Publishing (Big Press)
• Pros
• Bigger print runs.
• More potential exposure (big presses may or may not put money into advertising your work).
  
• Editing services provided.
• Automatic "respect."
• Large advance (w/ royalties also earned).
  
• Cons
• Hard to break into this side of the industry. Even good manuscripts get rejected.
• Run on a profit platform where selling many copies of one book (or many copies of multiple books) is the standard. This means books are bought based on their profitability, with content taking a close second. This doesn't mean crappy books are picked up, it just means that if a book is too niche, big presses are unlikely to take them.
• Long wait times for submissions. Long wait times for publication. Sometimes weeks, but most of the time months or even over a year.
  
• No simultaneous submissions to most big presses. One place at a time.
• Niche Publishing/Standard Small Publishing (Small Press)
• Pros
• Greater attention paid to individual books.
• Variety; there are an enormous amount of them.
• Most pay with royalties.
• Much more receptive to short story collections than big presses.
  
• Cons
• Fewer titles published each year than big presses.
• Because they are often niche markets, they are limited in what they take.
• Low advance or no advance.
• Smaller print runs.
• Depending on the publisher, there may be low distribution (Amazon and some bookstores, but not necessarily places like Borders).
• Rare instances of unprofessional behavior and publishers caving due to economic pressure (and I mean rare).
  
• Print-on-Demand (POD) Publishing (Small Press)
• Pros
• Your title never goes out of print. Books printed as needed.
  
• They pay in royalties.
• Other pros are roughly the same as for standard small presses.
  
• Cons
• Low distribution. Many chain stores will not take these books.
• Low advance or no advance.
• Low print runs if any (print runs are made obsolete by POD technology).
• Can be difficult to tell the difference between legitimate POD presses and ones simply trying to take advantage of you.
• Other cons roughly the same as for standard small presses.
  
• Print-on Demand (POD) Publishing (Self Publishing; Lulu, etc.)
• Pros
• Low cost to the author to get a novel printed (sometimes nothing).
• Titles are printed a needed.
• Complete creative control, with some exceptions where ISBN #s come into play.
• Pays in royalties.
  
• Cons
• You have to market your work on your own.
• Usually costs extra to distribute via major websites such as Amazon.
• Books usually cost significantly more than those published by small or big presses. Some free POD methods exist (such as via Lulu), but those tend to be limited. Most companies charge a large fee for printing packages.
  
• Selling books is, for most, nearly impossible. You have to really have something worth the money.
• You are stuck in a sea of other people who think they are great writers when, in reality, they aren't. This makes getting people to view your novel difficult at best.
• Sometimes distribution doesn't work properly. When something goes wrong, you have to take care of it. There is no company to perform those tasks for you.
• Many POD self-publishing companies intentionally take advantage of writers by promising them things that aren't actually provided, etc. If you get into POD self-publishing, be aware of what you're actually getting.
• Editing services almost always cost extra. Other professional services (formatting, etc.) almost always cost extra as well. Those companies that claim to provide these services for free are usually lying.
• POD self-publishing companies can be difficult at best, even when they are good companies.
  
• Getting your novel in stores is practically limited to what independent bookstores are willing to take the risk.
• Self-publishing comes with a stigma that is often justified by the overwhelming amount of garbage printed on a regular basis and thrust on the public.
  
• Standard Self-publishing (Note: Many self-publishing houses are switching to a POD format these days)
  
• Pros
• Complete creative control, with some exceptions where ISBN #s come into play.
  
• Pays in royalties (technically).
  
• Cons
• Basically all the same as POD self-publishing (minus the bits related directly to POD printing).
• Many of these companies will intentionally misrepresent what they do and con you out of your money. Know what you are getting into before you cough up the big bucks.
• Almost always costs an exorbitant amount of money for a publishing package.
• You have to print the quantity you want. No POD. The cost for the books you print comes out of your pocket.
• Podcast Novels (Podiobooks, Podnovels, Author-distributed Audiobooks)
• Pros
• Free (technically).
• Complete creative control. You can essentially do whatever you want.
• An enormous community for support.
• Audio format makes it easier on the listener/reader as they can take the book wherever they go.
  
• Cons
• Can cost a bit of money to get set up (mics, etc.), but generally getting started is low cost.
• Limited audience (and sometimes a picky audience). It's hard to break into the field and do well now that podcasting has grown.
• Has unfortunately been stuck with the stigma surrounding self-publishing, though to a lesser degree.
• All marketing, etc. is the responsibility of the author.
• Self-published eBooks (downloadable books in various formats)
• Pros
• Basically the same pros as self-published work (creative control, etc.).
• Can be good marketing tools for blogs, when done properly.
• Cons
• Basically the same cons as self-published work.
• Can be hard to sell since it is an electronic only format; a lot of people still won't read electronic stuff (this is the same with most electronic formats, though).
• Fiction is especially hard to sell in this format primarily because eBooks have and continue to be the domain of erotica (more so in the non-self-published arena). If you're not writing erotica, this can be a difficult market to get into. Non-fiction is dominated by topics related to marketing, business, and blogging, making subjects outside of these domains difficult to get attention in.
• Lends itself well to being in both print and electronic formats with companies like Lulu, which is great for marketing yourself to both markets.
  
• Online Novels (Blovels, Wovels, Web Novels, Blog Novels, and other names)
• Pros
• Basically the same pros as podcasts.
  
• Cons
• Basically the same cons as podcasts.
• You can run into the problem of failing to grab readers who don't like to read on a computer screen.
  

Well, there you go. This list is somewhat of a work in progress. If you have a suggestion on what to add, feel free to let me know. Let me know your horror stories, or tell me what flaws or cons I should add or edit!

If you liked this post, please stumble it, digg it, or buzz it.

Five Irritating Things About Other Writers (part three)

Here is the final installment of this series. This brings us to a total of fifteen irritating things about other writers (including Part One and Part Two)! So, feel free to leave a comment and enjoy:

• Thirteen-year-old kids who self-publish a book and think they are worthy of the same adoration as J. K. Rowling, Terry Pratchett, or any number of legitimately published individuals who have sold millions of copies of books. While I'm okay with people self-publishing, one should understand that you are not entitled to fair treatment. You chose to subvert the publishing process by doing it yourself. By doing so you've taken upon yourself the stigma that is involved with self-publishing. If you don't like it, then don't self-publish. You have to earn the respect of your prospective readers; readers are not entitled to respect you (which works for legitimately published writers too, but you get what I mean).
  
• Thirteen-year-old kids who did the same as above and then get really uppity with you when you point out the obvious and irritating flaws in their writing. This is part of the business. If you don't like people throwing slams at your work, don't write (talking fiction, of course, because I can do whatever the hell I want with my blog). This goes for all writers. If I review your book and I don't like it, don't argue with me about it. Being classy like some writers have been and just take the criticism. If you act like a petulant child it doesn't look good on your part.
• Literary writers who rip on genre writers for writing drivel. This is almost exclusively in the realm of jealousy on their part. Get over it. People don't want to read literary novels as much as they did in 1810. That's just the way it is.
• Writers who talk more about themselves than the person they're supposed to be interviewing. I'm not listening to your audio interview to listen to you babble out yourself in response to your own questions. I want to hear what this other person has to say. I know about you already; that's why I'm listening to your podcast. I don't know about the other person. So let them talk!
  

That is all!

Publishing: The Big Change?

I was recently reading this post regarding what might be a change in the way publishing works around these parts (these parts being everywhere) and it got me thinking: maybe there will be a change, but that change might actually be a bad thing.
The author of the post I linked sites examples within music (Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead) in which the musicians bypassed the traditional route (record labels) and recorded/published their work themselves. The problem I see with the argument is that these aren't good examples of "self-publishing" within the music industry. Both NIN and Radiohead were popular before they broke from their labels. Granted, NIN had a lot of issues with the music industry from the get go, but they were still popularized while with a label. They're not good examples of folks bypassing traditional routes and becoming popular. But that's really not directly related to what is being argued.
The argument is that the introduction of services like Lulu and Amazon's version of self-publishing (plus loads of other sites offering free publishing services using a POD model) now allows a lot of folks to publish without incurring the cost during the process (mostly, since you do have to pay a small fee to be able to distribute via Amazon and what not). But will this become a means by which everyone goes to bypass publishing traditions? Even a better question is whether it should?
Well, for obvious reasons the first question is pretty much answered. Folks are using Lulu and such. They are self-publishing their work and distributing it. This is good and bad at the same time. It's good because there are authors who simply can't get with a traditional publisher because they write niche stuff, and now such authors have a place they can publish without paying a year's worth of wages for printing. I just finished a book that had this very issue that was self-published and it was actually a fantastic read, in all honesty. But that also means that loads and loads of horrible garbage is printed that wouldn't be picked up by a real publisher even if it were the proper genre/style. I've been exposed to this too. In fact, there has been a recent feud over at YWO regarding this very subject: one young author published his book and could not take the criticism offered by those that did not share his enthusiasm of greatness. This author has, of course, gone off the deep end and begun attacking me on Twitter as well, seeing how I was apparently the most brutal of the bullies, when really I only submitted that his book was horribly written, because it was (it was practically unreadable and just because you self-published something doesn't make you a great writer).
I have a lot of issues with the inclusion of the ease of self-publishing. My main problem is that it's a self-damning process. Yes, there are going to be a few fantastic books done through Lulu, and likewise there will be many good books, but for every one fantastic book there are about two hundred wretched books, and that leaves it to the customer to wade through all the crap just to find something that is even readable. At least when you go to Borders or B&N you know that the vast majority of things in the store are at least edited, copy edited, and basically readable. But with self-publishing you're basically taking a wild gamble no matter what you buy. Maybe you'll get a good book, but most likely you'll end up with something under-par, something you'd rather not have wasted $17 on in the first place.
So, I see problems with the self-publishing model, especially the fact that it is so easy, and I see the change as more negative than positive. If more folks were spending the appropriate time and cash to edit their novels, it might be different (and Lulu offers these services for a fee, by the way), but practically nobody is doing this. We're left with unedited tripe that floods the self-pubbed market and makes it impossible to wade through. I've never bought anything directly from Lulu because of this very problem.
Perhaps we'll see more authors taking control of their work, but will this be a good thing overall? Perhaps for popular authors, ones who already have a following, but I don't see the self-publishing model improving in quality, just in quantity. Yes, Lulu is a great service. It's wonderful if you need a printing for something you want to put out and don't want to spend thousands of dollars. Lulu has also made it tremendously easy for folks to print works as the "publisher" rather than the author, which is fantastic for the rise of independent presses. The problem, however, is that such things are a rarity, and that is perhaps because many of the folks who would be up for such a thing are burdened by the negativity that comes with vanity presses and even Lulu. Lulu is great, but we all know it's a self-publishing firm and that there are thousands of hopelessly terrible books floating around in its catalogue.
The question now is whether I truly feel there will be a change in publishing. Yes, and I'm very much against it. I fully and totally agree that the current publishing models adopted and desperately clung to by the larger publishing houses is outdated and is in great need of adjustment not only for the sake of publishing in general, but for readers and writers alike. But, and this is a big but, if changing means reducing the quality of literature--and by quality I mean simple things like writing that is readable both stylistically, grammatically, and spelling based--then we are going to deal with what might be the first actual death of literature. Do any of us honestly believe that people will keep reading if all they get is garbage? None of us like wading through trash to find something we'll at least enjoy enough to finish. True, we might hate how the current publishing model works, especially us writerly folk, but surely it is better than what could happen if we make drastic changes in who has power in the industry, right?
This is why I am against the shifting of power from the publishing house to the individual. Yes, I agree that authors should have more control over their books. The fact that most authors have no say over what cover art they receive is rather disturbing, especially since sometimes you end up with cover art that looks like someone wiped their arse with it. But we have editors and copy editors and publishing houses there for a reason: it makes writing stronger than it would be without such services. How many of those self-published authors spent the time or money getting a professional editor? Maybe a couple at most? You might be a great writer, but even great writers make mistakes. Few writers, if any, catch all their mistakes (published authors too). Should the public be subjected to such lack of quality just so the publishing model becomes more friendly to the writer and reader?
Changes will occur, but I think the changes should be more with how the publishing houses operate than with who controls the process. We need more good books in this world, not a plethora of trashy novels overrun with mistakes. Let's make the right changes occur. That's what will be best for literature as a whole.