Flights of Fantasy discussion

I'm sure the title of this thread will change a bit as I clarify my thoughts...

My husband and I used to argue a lot about books and publishing. He's not a big reader and he has no interest in publishing news.

One of our most frequent arguments was about self-publishing. When it first started I was excited and all about finding a new great SPA (self-published author) but my husband thought it was the worst idea ever.

He thinks that

- SPAs and [Amazon] model helped to destroy publishing
- If everyone and anyone can get a book published, the publishing industry will default to the lowest common denominator (as it seems to be doing right now)
- If Amazon et al hadn’t made self-publishing so easy – the publishing industry would have expanded a great deal (to include a lot of small presses)
- If Amazon et al hadn’t made self-publishing so easy – there would be a lot more publishing jobs AND the current kinds of publishing jobs would have expanded to handle digital needs
- As tons and tons of people push their own book at you, you will start to drown in all the "noise"

At this point I would normally argue that “If self-publishing hadn’t become so easy we wouldn’t have SPA greats like Hugh Howey, Suzanne Collins, etc.”

He then refutes my point with “You know those P2Ps that you hate so much? Well, the SPAs that you like would have come to the forefront JUST the ways those did. If the book is good word of mouth would have helped it out just like the P2Ps.”


Well, over time I (and this makes me sick to say) am starting to think my husband (and his layman opinion) was right. I know I've pretty much stopped reading SPAs. I know that a lot of SPAs have helped to cause quite a bit of drama.

How do you all feel?

I agree with most of his points. But I don't think the need for publishers will ever go away. Nor should it. I think of self publishing as just another way for a would be author to get noticed. Of the few who find success in self publishing, many of them get picked up by publishers themselves.

I do believe strongly that the more old fashioned publishers need to change and adapt to the new world of eBook publishing. It isn't a fad. It isn't going away any time soon. And its a whole new field.

I don't read many self published books. A few here and there. Mostly in horror. And all through word of mouth and recommendations from trusted readers.

A few of the best books I've read in the past few years were from SPAs.

However, these days I generally avoid them unless I get a personal rec from someone I know and trust. Too many of them lack an understanding of author = business. I'm not even talking about spam and the author / reviewer wars, I'm talking about excuses. Excuses for not learning about their craft, excuses for putting shoddy work up for sale, excuses for not understanding how copyright works, excuses, excuses, excuses.

If an author cannot get their work edited somehow (not proofread by the neighbor, I mean actual editing) then it shouldn't be in the marketplace. Period.

I've always reviewed SP books the same way as those from the BPHs, and I got really tired of being told that it's unfair to do so. I will never give five stars to something full of typos and errors because "the story was good!" I don't give A's for effort.

Now, add the author / reviewer drama and related backlash on top of that... Makes me want to block SPAs out of my consciousness "just in case". That people who can't freakin' write are flipping out over a lukewarm reception to their "product" defies common sense and yet, at the same time, so clearly outlines human nature.

I don't necessarily agree with all of your husband's points (though the "lowest common denominator" part is a pretty accurate representation of the landscape I'm seeing). The BPHs aren't going anywhere.

Nienna wrote: "I agree with most of his points. But I don't think the need for publishers will ever go away. Nor should it. I think of self publishing as just another way for a would be author to get noticed. Of ..."

Oh, I agree.

And to clarify, he didn't mean that "destroy publishing = no Big6" but more that the landscape has changed so much that it's not really the same as it used to be (meaning the time & effort not the business model).

Christa wrote: "A few of the best books I've read in the past few years were from SPAs.

However, these days I generally avoid them unless I get a personal rec from someone I know and trust. Too many of them lack ..."

I avoid most SPA work, too. And coming from MR...you know that's a big deal. I was indoctrinated with ereading on MR.

And you're right. I do review them the same as the Big6. I give no passes for "the story." And I get sick of hearing that it's not fair or how hard it is. LIFE is hard. Suck it up and move on.

The behavior is an issue as well (I wrote a blog post on branding) as well and the current call to arms: they want amazon to stop giving readers refunds. Or if they do get refunds it has to be within an hour or so. Worse yet, readers who request refunds are "jerks."

Do. Not. Want.

It's so funny that this is a topic here since I accidentally started a self-pub debate in the mod thread. :D

So I will admit: I'm completely in your husband's camp, MrsJ. I consider self-publishing a crock of shite, and do not read self-published works at all. I've never felt I'm missing anything, except hassle and drama. The handful that are actually decent get picked up by traditional publishing houses anyway because no matter how much they protest about the indie revolution, authors know that's the way to go. Then the people who sensibly waited and refused to read a self-published work get a professionally edited and typeset version while the people who paid for the self-pub edition are left with an inferior copy -- or are treated like mugs and expected to buy it again.

In fact, I don't consider self-published works to be books at all. I honestly don't see what differentiates them from things like fanfic and blog fiction, and since when do we call those 'books'? It doesn't mean some of them aren't good, and it can be a good way for an author to get practice for writing something that will sell to a publishing house, but in my view, until such time as you have a contract with a reputable publishing house, you do not have a book. You have a manuscript. And I'm not paying to beta read it.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know anything at all about fanfic, or "P2P", so, maybe this is obvious to others, but how exactly would word of mouth help an author who can't get their book out to people EXCEPT by self-publishing it? If the book is sitting in a dozen publishing companies' slush piles, then it's nothing more than a manuscript. At least Fanfic writers (and I use the term loosely) have readers.

But then, I am pretty ignorant about the publishing industry in general. It's not something I think about. I know that books are published, because I'm able to read them. Whether they are "name brand" or not isn't really as important to me, until I run into a reason not to like the "off brand".

Still, I can't argue some of your husband's points, MrsJ. I just think it's the nature of any industry to evolve, and now traditional publishers have to up their game to stay relevant, since people have a choice as to how they distribute their books.

I've seen articles from well-known, previously traditionally published authors who decide to self-publish their next books because it offers them greater control over their product. What do you guys think of those?

Or authors who self-publish and then are picked up by a publisher?

I know that T doesn't read self-pub, but it seems that the line is pretty blurred in some of these cases. If it was self-pub at one time, is it off-limits forever? Or if an author self-pubs after having traditionally published is everything but that book fair game?

Sorry if this sounds bitchy. I don't intend it that way, just curious and discussing. But Thomas is rushing me out of the house to run an errand and have to type fast.

Becky wrote: "I've seen articles from well-known, previously traditionally published authors who decide to self-publish their next books because it offers them greater control over their product. What do you guys think of those?

Or authors who self-publish and then are picked up by a publisher?

I know that T doesn't read self-pub, but it seems that the line is pretty blurred in some of these cases. If it was self-pub at one time, is it off-limits forever? Or if an author self-pubs after having traditionally published is everything but that book fair game? "

I'm usually willing to take chances on authors that were previously trad pub, regardless of whether it's reissues of books that have reverted to the author, or new books. Generally, these authors have a really good grasp on what is needed to put out a finished product. They tend to have more consistent quality control.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "And you're right. I do review them the same as the Big6. I give no passes for "the story." And I get sick of hearing that it's not fair or how hard it is. LIFE is hard. Suck it up and move on."

Completely agree with this.

I'm often concerned about sounding bitchy when I discuss SPAs as well, because it's a topic on which I've developed really strong opinions but also a topic which I'm really interested in discussing because I think the fallout, so to speak, of the arrival of mass self-publishing alongside the blossoming of the ereader market is really fascinating. So let me just say that despite my passionate opinions and language I do enjoy these debates and respect the variety of opinions they bring out in other readers. :)

Becky wrote: "I've seen articles from well-known, previously traditionally published authors who decide to self-publish their next books because it offers them greater control over their product. What do you guys think of those?"

My feeling is that this is a case of authors' egos getting too big for their britches. I don't think anyone likes to be edited, at least not all the time. There are probably just as many traditionally published authors as there are SPAs who feel that their books are their babies and the editors are eviscerating them at times, even if more of them have the common sense not to jeopardise their contracts by publically moaning about it.

But while editors won't make the right decisions 100% of the time, I feel that books are on the whole immensely improved for being a team effort, and that even the most detached of authors is not going to be totally objective about something on which they've laboured for months or more likely years.

There are some traditionally published authors who have gotten so big, in terms of sales, that they effectively manage to escape editorial control, and never once have I seen their books improve for it. They usually become bloated or self-indulgent. (*cough*Anne Rice*cough*)

So it's completely understandable that authors who haven't reached that level but have a loyal fanbase also want to exercise the opportunity to escape editorial control, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that leads to a better experience for the reader. I think it leads to exactly the same kind of self-indulgence you see from some of the big names who have shaken off their editors' efforts to reign their egos in.

Becky wrote: "I know that T doesn't read self-pub, but it seems that the line is pretty blurred in some of these cases. If it was self-pub at one time, is it off-limits forever? Or if an author self-pubs after having traditionally published is everything but that book fair game?"

I will say that for me personally, a book's origin prior to traditional publication doesn't come into it. All I care about is that the book I'm holding in my hands came through a traditional publishing house that I respect and that it had the oversight of a qualified editor/editorial team. So I have the Century hardbacks of Hugh Howey's Wool sitting here, and I'll judge them just like any other book when I get around to them. But if Howey self-publishes another book I'm not going to look at it. All I'm interested in is what comes out of the publishing houses -- whether it got there via the slush pile, the author hobnobbing at conventions, prior self-publication, or carrier pigeon.

Hmm... I wouldn't have thought about it that way, but I can definitely see your point about the ego.

Though, I've had some interactions with self-pubbed authors who had little to no ego and just a desire to get their books out there.

I do wish that the quality of self-pub books was better (much better), so I can completely understand avoiding it for that reason alone. I've read some gems, and some clunkers that look like they were edited by a wood chipper - if at all. But mostly I wish that the self-pub apologists would tone it down, because they aren't doing anyone any favors by claiming that it's mean to criticize someone's writing when they mix up homophones, can't spell or use punctuation, and have no idea which tense they are writing in... or which it should be.

But still, I'm willing to take the chance on them until I have a reason to avoid an author. But that's really just the same way I treat any book, regardless of how it's published. :)

And FFS I wish someone would take a red pen to Anne Rice's purple one.

Becky wrote: "I've read some gems, and some clunkers that look like they were edited by a wood chipper - if at all."

Becky wrote: "And FFS I wish someone would take a red pen to Anne Rice's purple one."

These lines cracked me up. :D

I am in complete agreement about criticism of self-published works. It makes my blood boil every time I see a review that says something along the lines of 'I'm not going to criticise this too much because it's self-published...'

So freaking what?! If someone is going to charge for their manuscript, they should expect readers to hold them to professional standards. If they aren't ready to meet those standards (and be held accountable in consumer reviews when they fail), their work belongs in a writer's group, not out in the open with a price tag.

And when consumer reviews fail to enforce the same standards they would use for a traditionally published book then they're just actively encouraging people not to take SPA work seriously. They're saying 'Well, since it's just an amateur effort, it doesn't need to be held to professional standards.' And you know, I agree that it's just an amateur effort, but I don't think that's the impression they want me to come away with...

Yup. You want to be paid like a professional, then do professional work. It's that simple.

!!!!

OMG, I agree so much - with so many points.

Its funny that Anne Rice came up in this convo - she's known for siccing her fanpoodles on people. She's in the midst of doing it right now at Amazon - she loves the drama.

But Anne Rice is batshit crazy and that's a great reason to leave her batshit crazy ass alone. She fucks with me its because shes looking for me. I won't review a damn thing she's written until she dies.

Becky wrote: "I will be the first to admit that I don't know anything at all about fanfic, or "P2P", so, maybe this is obvious to others, but how exactly would word of mouth help an author who can't get their book out to people EXCEPT by self-publishing it? If the book is sitting in a dozen publishing companies' slush piles, then it's nothing more than a manuscript. At least Fanfic writers (and I use the term loosely) have readers."

That's a great question. How did Rowling get pubbed? IIRC she was rejected quite a bit. I'm assuming that you take that rejection and work it out til you are in a better place (bookwise).

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "I'm assuming that you take that rejection and work it out til you are in a better place (bookwise)."

Yeah, but that's persistence and patience and luck... Word of mouth isn't going to benefit a book that nobody has read. Fanfic that's published online and pulled to publish has been read and has (though I don't understand it at all) fans and a following. They already support the "project", right, so publishers know that there's an audience and it's less of a risk.

A new author won't have that same benefit, and without a way to take matters into their own hands, their books may never see the light of day.

I completely believe that there are books that shouldn't have seen the light of day, and that slush piles are a very good thing, but publishing is a business out to make a profit, and so it's flawed. A wonderful book may be rejected dozens of times because it's TOO unique and it's not a sure enough bet that there will be an audience. While I understand the business decision, I'm glad that there's an alternative.

I just wish that the alternative didn't have such a bad rep due to the crap writing and shitty author entitlement issues.

To be honest, I think the cases of a genuinely brilliant book being rejected because it's too unique for publishers to think it will sell are quite wildly exaggerated. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because I know it does, but I think the overwhelming majority of people whose book was rejected because it was 'too unique' were actually rejected because it just plain wasn't good enough. Sometimes they probably get told it's too out there by friends/family/agents to soften the blow, sometimes they probably just get it into their heads that that's why they were rejected because it couldn't possibly be a fault with their writing, oh no.

A lot of authors also get too attached to one project. I don't think that makes for a good writer either. They've written a book, and now THAT BOOK must sell. They'll just keep submitting and submitting and submitting and wailing about how conservative publishers are rather than considering that if they wrote another book, and sold THAT, then they'd start to build an audience and their publisher would be more willing to take a look at work that's more unusual and might not sell if it didn't have an already established brand name attached to it.

There's a lot of traditionally published authors that have done that actually -- shelved the flawed but really original first book, sold their second/third/fourth novel, and rewritten and published that half-forgotten first book when they have the benefit of experience and their publishers are willing to take a chance on this person who's already making them money.

It's just that the world of unpublished writers has always been plagued with people who seem to have a harder time getting over their first book than they do their first love, and nowadays these people are becoming SPAs.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "Its funny that Anne Rice came up in this convo - she's known for siccing her fanpoodles on people. She's in the midst of doing it right now at Amazon - she loves the drama.

But Anne Rice is bat..."

About 10 years ago I was running an Anne Rice themed vampire roleplay site (don't judge me) and her lawyers contact me with a letter about copyright infringement.

I'd agree with all of that... but think if J.K. Rowling hadn't kept trying. HP was rejected and rejected and rejected and then FINALLY someone decided to take a chance on her - a first time author nobody who had written nothing else - and her series has gone on to be one of the best selling of all time and practically breathed new life into the YA market.

I know that my examples are more the exception than the rule, there's a few metric tons of shit out there, but I guess that I'm overall in favor of there being more options. It actually benefits the publishers as well, because they can take advantage of someone taking the risk upon themselves, and when they start getting an audience, then they can pick them up.

We have an eight-year-old to thank for the publication of Harry Potter: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...

I do have some issue with fan fic authors writting within a popular fandom, gaining followers, and then publishing an edited version of their fic later. But I don't have a problem with fan fiction in general. As long as its kept within the rules and that means you give up all rights to your fic (they don't belong to you) and you should never be able to make money off of them. That means, to me, in any way shape or form.

There are however sites where fic authors can post original stories outside of fan fiction. I'm not familiar with those though. And I don't know the legality of it. And I'm sure that those sites also have fewer readers.

This is slightly off topic, but what do you think of Amazon starting to sell fan fiction? Personally I'm against it.

Colleen wrote: "We have an eight-year-old to thank for the publication of Harry Potter: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent..."

Adorable. But there's an author that says (something like) "if you have a story too complicated for adults, write it for children."

Becky wrote: "I'd agree with all of that... but think if J.K. Rowling hadn't kept trying. HP was rejected and rejected and rejected and then FINALLY someone decided to take a chance on her - a first time author ..."

But that's part of the process that teaches them to handle rejection. It's important in my opinion. Even the jewels have to be polished and the person who can go straight to publish does not have to do that. I want them to know rejection. I want them to question the current status of the WIP. I want them to wonder what is wrong - because then they get involved with things that polish their work. They have known rejection so they do not go out and create a hate website over a bad review. Unless they're batshit crazy, of course.

And what T said was on point - sometimes the author has to throw that original first book in the drawer and work on something else.

MrsJoseph (taking back my data & giving GR the middle finger) wrote: "Adorable. But there's an author that says (something like) "if you have a story too complicated for adults, write it for children." "

I was going to say it sounds like Lewis, but apparently it's L'Engle:

“You have to write the book that wants to be written. And if the book will be too difficult for grown-ups, then you write it for children.”
― Madeleine L'Engle

I completely agree with that, MrsJ. I'm not saying that there should be no rejection process. That would be Ridiculous with an intentionally capital R (though I'm on my phone, again so it could have gone either way. :P). But I still like that there's an alternative for books to make it to market when traditional companues wont take a chance on them. Maybe they shouldn't, maybe the author's not ready, but I could say the same about books that do hsve a traditional publisher backing them. *shrug*

There are problems with both sides, but I'm generally in favor of more choices.

Becky wrote: "I completely agree with that, MrsJ. I'm not saying that there should be no rejection process. That would be Ridiculous with an intentionally capital R (though I'm on my phone, again so it could h..."

Well, that was hubby's other point - that there would be more publishers. We think of the Big6 when we think of publishers but there are tons of small presses.

The digital revolution would still happen and the Big6 would still be unprepared. But the more the demand the more jobs in the field and the more players in the game. The publishing landscape would still change but there would be more quality control(s) in place.

More publishers would definitely be good. I approve. ;)