Self-Publishing: A Rant and a Q4U

>R, I wouldn't worry too much. As they say, the cream rises to the top and if a self-pubbed book becomes a hit, then they deserve their success. But if even a "vetted" book fails to sell 5,000 copies, then there's not that much competition anyway.

Maybe agents need to be more open-minded and not act like lemmings trying to follow the trends. (YA, anyone?)

>Although I think your fears around self-publishing have some merit, I have to say that I am not as confident in the traditional publishing system as you seem to be. Yes, many authors do go through a rigorous screening process, and I suppose there is some merit in the Protestant work-ethic of 'trial by humiliation'. Many good writers work hard at their craft, and are never accorded the success or status of writers like Meyers or Rowling. They do not capture the right attention, or fire the right imagination, or find the right agent to help direct their efforts (even harder in Canada, where there are very few agents).

I contacted the new self-publishing division of Harlequin, on spec and without expectation. I had an email within an hour, and a phone call within three hours. I spoke to a nice lady who has me on file as 'interested, but not yet ready to move forward'. We'll see how much spam I receive, having given them my information.

You have to admit, that is an improvement on the typical "Don't call us – at all" attitude of most publishing businesses.

I have read self-published and promoted fanfiction for several years, studying a world-wide phenomenon which has many detractors. Yes, much of it is poorly written, with no plot and less writing skill. Some of it is extraordinary: lyrical, accomplished writing that shines through the millions of books remaindered in the local supermarket bins. People write fanfiction for many, many reasons, and some of us write to practice our skills, to improve our craft, and to share our work with others, trusting them to volunteer honest feedback and benefiting from their generosity.

I think of self-publishing in much the same way. When I lecture about 'publishing online' (a field growing so fast I need to completely re-write my presentation every term), I usually counsel the fiction-writers to explore the traditional channels, unless they are writing in the science-fiction or romance fields, which are far more open to e-publication. Some 'literature' (although I question the term) is better served through that path, and will probably continue to be, as long as the traditional publishing houses stay technologically relevant and keep up with the medium (ie release their books in e-formats).

Still, Dickens wrote his novels in serialization form, at pennies per word, and used to kill someone off or bring in a new character if the kids needed shoes, or a story was extremely popular. Shakespeare would add scenes and speeches because certain actors were popular and demanded their time on the stage. Stephen King wrote stories for antibiotic money when his kids had ear infections. Yesterday's pulp fiction sometimes becomes tomorrow's 'literature', and vice versa: only time will tell whether Philip Pullman is right in saying his Dark Materials series will outlive Rowlings' Harry Potter.

Long answer, but your entry hit a nerve. As a reader, I don't need a gatekeeper. I can decide for myself not to read any one of the dozen books recently published which rip off Jane Austen (although Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was mildly amusing for the first three pages). I am capable of finding reading material I enjoy in numerous places on the net, and of reading it on my phone, my iPod, or my computer. The publishing business is going to have to move to meet the consumer, just as the music business has.

>I think the cream will rise to the top, too, no matter who or how it's published. I'm not too concerned about self-published books.

>Rachelle: So many of us are thankful to you for your dedication to helping all of us writers. I hope you continue to have some kind of job in publishing where you can keep up those kind efforts. I truly believe traditional publishing is collapsing like the once powerful Soviet Union. Sharon said you have fears…they've probably only begun.

>I see your point generally… however, looks like (at least for the Harlequin dealy bopper thing), it's gonna cost somebody at least $599 to $1,599 to self publish– and though relatively cheap when compared to whatever else .. still that's a wad of cash (for me anyway). It will prohibit every Mary Alice Janine Bledsoe Smith from printing up a bunch of romantic hooey every day. Sure, there will be some junk out there as there is now.. but it will cost the girl (or guy) to do it. So that's one prohibitive factor that will help tamp the trash down I think.

I wouldn't pay it. I think a lot of people are turned off by paying out cash even for a book of their own. Some will do it.. but I think they're not going to do it over and over and over.. they simply can't afford it.

Now – on the other side.. Publishing houses. I think their motives are the thing to worry about. They are going to want to cut costs.. and they'd be willing to share those costs with the writer.. and the self publishing arms help them do that – like it or not. I actually think they are pushing for it while shooting themselves in the foot at the same time..

It's kind like a win win lose lose situation.

ebooks, self publishing arms, etc… it's all kind of disconcerting.

- but the story lives on.

>Rachelle–I think you are absolutely correct to look at the issue more from the vantage point of the reader than anyone else. As much as I would love to be a published writer, and am working diligently toward that end, I have decided to depend upon the industry (my agent, editors, and publishers) to act as an arbiter. If my writing never reaches a level at which a traditional publisher deems it ready and worthy to be published, so be it. I do NOT want to inflict my writing upon the reading public if it doesn't pass muster! I consider that an insult to the consumer, my potential audience.

Of course, there are exceptions. My family members are eagerly awaiting the book I'll be self-publishing about our Crazy LIttle Mama, for her relatives and our close friends only. Other than that, if I get the urge to self-pub? That's why God made blogs.

(I, too, reserve the right to change my mind. It's 5 am, and I've only had 2 sips of coffee.)

.

>As one or two others have suggested, I wonder if this issue has different short term and long term effects. The short term effects of a self-publishing boom could in fact lead to a flooding of the market with a lot of material that the reading public will find unworthy.

But that could create a backlash. In fact, it could bring more prestige to the "gatekeepers" — if the gatekeepers really do know how to find and promote the best works (and I think agents and publishers do have a great deal of expertise). Perhaps the role of agents and publishers will change; a big part of the slush pile of the future may be those self published books that are making modest or surprising sales.

There's something to be said for an author who is willing to shell out thousands of his or her own money and promote the book. It might be delusional (and probably often is), but it also might be the kind of passion that shows agents and publishers that this is an author who wants to connect with an audience and engage.

I write all of this as someone who is a reader and a newbie to the writing and publishing world, so I think the view of agents and traditional publishers is still very important because of the years of experience you've developed. You made some great points about self publishing devaluing the work of writers — but I have to say, this has been a process in the works long before publishing houses started developing self-publishing arms. The democratization of print and information thanks to technology means that words really are cheaper now. I think any author who wants to be a part of this process has to realize that.

The publishing world isn't the only industry to see the democratization of its processes. From higher education to the music and film industries, the spread and accessibility of knowledge and artistic production has meant that many more people are becoming involved in what used to be more exclusive activities. Democratization has its definite downsides, but it hasn't meant the disappearance of the elites (sure you can get a degree online, but isn't Harvard still respected?). What democratization ultimately means is that it's harder for everyone involved to be successful because there's more competition — harder for the big publishing firms (or big colleges or big record labels or big film studios), but also harder for the little guys. Sure, it's easier to say "I'm an author!" (or, I'm a college grad or I've made a record or I've made a film), but it's no easier to make a living from this. (It may even be more difficult.)

So, while I think change is coming, it doesn't have to mean the end of good books. It may mean the end of some publishing firms, and it will make things difficult for all involved in the production process. But the reader (are there any readers left, or have we all started writing? ;-D) will actually be the least negatively impacted because they'll have a less expensive product and more choice (though choice comes with its own set of difficulties).

Thanks for your thoughts on this! Very interesting discussion!

>As a consumer, I don't have the time or money to separate the wheat from the chaff myself. I depend on both gatekeepers and word of mouth.

What's popular, of course, does not always have artistic merit (we need look no farther than the Macarena). Some part of what's popular will satisfy nothing other than our need to feel part of something big, but I want art, something that whispers to my soul. I am part of a market, and that market requires gatekeepers of some sort.

I've never bought a vanity- or self-published book (that I'm aware of). I browsed a few online (using Look Inside) way back when but stopped pretty quickly, after being so frequently distracted by poor typesetting, poor editing, poor craft, you name it, and I went back to the gatekeepers.

I'm sure there are gems out there that didn't use the gatekeepers, but I don't have the time to find them. Whoever finds them and tells me about them becomes, by definition, a gatekeeper. Even I become a gatekeeper by giving some word-of-mouth gatekeepers more weight than others.

Paper, computer screen, clay tablets, storyteller next to a campfire, it matters only a little to me. But I will spend my time and money on more than random shots in the dark.

Too many unrelated metaphors, I know, but does that make sense?

>Totally agree. When I completed my first manuscript, my natural inclination was to go through the traditional publishing route, but many writer friends advised the self-publishing route. One good friend asked me what I wanted to get out of it.

The simple answer is validation. Getting a book published is tough and I believe that if I get my book published, then that will be a worthy achievement.

Self publishing says more about my ability to promote myself than my ability to write.

It is akin to blogging, wonderful for self publication, and seeing those visitors flock by (or not), but pales into insignificance when compared with the joy of getting a short story accepted by a paying magazine.

>I agree with you on this topic.

First of all, as a reader, I want to see GOOD books in the bookstores. That's why I go. It's already hard enough to sift through the hundreds of books to find a good one, but just imagine how much harder that will be when stores start stocking self-published books? It will be nearly impossible to find the good literature that keeps me reading.

Secondly, as a writer, self-publishing makes me a little mad. Not the usual self-publishing, but these new self-publishing houses "with status". I agree with what you said about writing being exclusive. It's a privilege to be published; it's exciting. If ANYONE can write a book, writing becomes just as mediocre as working the fast food chain down the street. Although I have yet to publish a book, I appreciate the extensive process. It spurs me on as a writer to improve, and I look forward to the day someone sits back and says, "Wow. This is good."

With the self-publishing boom, I'm scared that publishers will look at my writing and say, "That's okay" and let it slide through the process. I'm not laboring for a book deal; I'm laboring to write the best book that I can write. Self-publishing loses that focus.

>I agree with you 100%. While some self-pubbed authors simply have yet to get their chance, the majority of them simply haven't done their homework. Worse: most of those are too arrogant to admit they have homework to do. (I base these statements on my experience as Managing Editor of Christian Children's Book Review. We receive many, many self-published books and are rarely able to give them positive reviews.)

We NEED gatekeepers. If what I see from self-published authors gets into the mainstream without differentiation, readers will lose trust in publishers. In fact, I fear many (especially younger generations) will quit reading all together. If an entire generation stops buying books, what will the publishers say about money flow then?

>The gates have been thrown open. Readers have the power to sort, to screen, to buy or not buy. The public can filter what they read the same way they filter their news and their music.

As other have indicated, if it's not good, it ultimately won't do well. The problem with the old system is that "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

Agents' jobs will change, but they won't disappear. Literary agents, like real estate agents or insurance agents will compete to attract business. You can sell your house yourself or buy insurance online, but it's a lot more work and you either educate yourself or risk making a costly mistake.

Somehow, the big publishing companies existed with virtual monopolies for years. How the system lasted this long is the amazing part. The whole thing was contrary to the capitalist way of life. Our country was built on a man starting a company in his garage or selling a new product by going door to door. If he worked hard enough and people liked his product, his company grew.

The free enterprise system has finally come to publishing. Any writer who believes in her book can put it out there and a reader across the country can choose to buy it or not. If people like the book, it will succeed. If they don't, it will fail.

The great publishing castles are falling as the power shifts to the writers and the readers who built their empires. In the brave new world we become our own editorial board.

The hands that hold the mouse now rule the world — and that is as it should be!

>This whole topic scares the poop out of me. I’m divided and I’ll tell you why.

About eight years ago I went to a SCBWI conference in LA. A self published author gave a speech about his rejection and self publication journey. Everyone applauded his tenacious spirit to fight for his book, and so did I, until I actually read it. There is a reason the literary world has gate keepers. The book was boring and didn’t speak to the audience. It needed a gate keeper.

Having said that, take a look at Twilight. Steven King and people like him have unabashedly slammed Ms. Meyer for her work. Are they right? I think some of them are (and I say that as a fan). It is poorly written in some places, there is a lot of dead time and large chunks that aren’t really necessary. However, the romance is a whole lot of fun. The Twilight romance became a cash cow, and I think that is the point; the bottom line.

It seems like literature is going toward a dark place. My B&N sold out whole sections of their floor space to children’s toys. (?) People aren’t reading and when they do it isn’t the kind that “live deep and suck out all the marrow of life,” if you know what I mean.

I with you Rachelle, but I’m more worried about our world and the fact that Americans aren’t reading well. What does that mean and how can we fix it. I’m going to blog about this because I have too much to say.

>I think you're exactly right about the readership and value. *shudder*

Writers can still come out on top, thanks to word of mouth. But as a reader, this really stinks. It already stinks when I buy a book and don't like it.

Supply and demand. More supply, less value. ( I think, didn't do too well in economics, lol)

I hope, hope, hope self-pubbing doesn't become the norm. *sigh*

>I say we wait and see how these official-looking self-published books sell. It could be no one wants them, or worse, they devalue the name of the publisher attached to them.

>I believe the issue has two folds, and maybe more folds than that after I write this down.

First, from the writer's perspective several years ago, you've seen rejection letter after rejection letter after no response at all. You're getting frustrated; you're getting older; you really want to have your book out there. So, you decide to self-publish. For good or bad, you're committed. You self-promote; you sell the book. What happens after that? You have to do it all over again, unless you're somehow lucky enough or your work is that amazing that a publisher picks it up. Would this happen? Maybe. Or maybe not. If I were a publisher, would I see A) this person's doing fine on their own, no reason for me to do anything, or B) this author is committed to the craft and would go on book tours (or jump off a cliff) if I asked them to do it, and maybe I should give them a shot? Then there's the reality that if your stuff was that good as to attract a publisher's attention, why didn't they offer you a book deal when you submitted in the first place? Maybe it's just not that good.

As for the second part, well, I've seen self-publishing work for some people; only two, really, from personal observation. I'm sure there are more of them out there, but once this boom goes full bore, I weep for the quality of work that will be out there. Gone will be the days of Dumas and Zola, Fitzgerald and Austen, Hugo and Dickens. In there place will be whole novels written in "text language" and actual full-length books filled with grammatical errors because someone is self-publishing and just ran out of money to have someone actually edit and proof their manuscript before clicking the "Publish" button on their computer screen.

In the end, don't we all self-publish when we write for our blogs? Some blogs and full on websites are created to market yourself and your writing. It is a form of marketing, but it's also a form of self-publishing. Didn't we get into this to stroke our own egos or rant about this and that? That's the royal "we" as I'm just as guilty as the next person. I may not have the guts to put my fiction out on my blog, but the blog is there to quiet the voices in my head by giving them a playground. Thousands of other bloggers do the same thing every day.

As for me, unless all the actual publishing houses close down, I'm still going to query like I have nothing to lose, because at this point, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Now I pose my question(s): Are houses going the self-publishing route because it will save them production costs? Will they rely on authors to pay the up-front costs of having the book edited, formatted, and what not, and only have to deal with marketing and actual printing expenses?

Joshua M. Carstens

>I pretty much agree with you. I think self-publishing has a place (and I consider the new Harlequin imprint to be more along the lines of vanity publishing than self-publishing). I've bought self-published books from Amazon. Recently I needed to research what life on a llama farm was like and bought a self-published book about this. But I think we need gatekeepers for fiction, to keep the quality high.

>This seems like a bit of a "sky-is-falling" perspective. And not all self-published books will be cruddy.

I wouldn't worry yet. There are basically two business models in the world: you can compete on quality, or compete on price. I don't know any reader who goes out of their way to buy a book solely because it's cheap, and doesn't care about quality. A vacation in Disney World is not cheap at all, yet thousands upon thousands of people flock there because they know that the majority of the time, they will have a quality experience that is more memorable than perhaps a more affordable trip would have been.

I think it will be important for traditional publishing houses (along with their self-pub arms) and agents to continue to try to align their brands with quality.

>There are really two issues here: Quality and Business.

Quality: in the publishing industry as it currently functions, the book is as good as the publisher, their staff of experts, and the author can make it. In self-publishing, the book is as good as the author and the people they choose to work with can make it.

The presumption that this *must* result in a poor quality book is off-base. Working with professional editors, designers, and marketers can result in the same quality self-published book that you'd expect to receive from an established publisher.

The quality problem is anchored in education and industry maturity. Self-publishing authors need to be educated about the differences between a good book and a bad book. Companies who help authors self-publish need to develop to the point that they're sincerely helping authors develop, not just pumping up their orders.

Business:

Currently, the ultimate arbiter of success in the publishing industry is sales. Quality of writing, uniqueness of idea, those things all contribute to the value of a project only if they translate to sales.

We talk about gatekeepers — but, we have to ask, what keeps the gatekeepers in business? Selling books. I think we can all agree that the books that sell the most are not necessarily always the books that achieve the heights of artist perfection.

The general public doesn't buy books just because they are in a bookstore. Books are bought based on recommendation–reviews we've read, endorsements from people we trust (authors, ministry leaders, etc). Whether a book is published by Thomas Nelson or WestBowPress, the only way I'm going to buy it is if I have a reason to.

Self publishing is a bad idea if the book won't sell. But you know, unfortunately for us who aspire to be writers, publishing in general is a bad idea if the book won't sell. In either case, it's a bad idea because the business will not be sustainable.

Let blogging serve as some encouragement — blogs that are good reads (given enough time and effort) get readers. Blogs that are poorly written, generally (given enough time) die.

In books, we'll have the opportunity to watch the same principles at work.

(Disclaimer: I work for BelieversPress, we provide Christian authors with a trustworthy publishing team.)

>Wish I had time to read through every comment. Wow.

I do think it stinks that self-pubbed books will be in stores along with "real" books, but I know how hard it is to get Barnes & Noble to put your "real" book on their shelves. I'm assuming they'll know which books are self-pubbed and which aren't and stock their stores accordingly.

I ran cross country in high school. One of my teammates couldn't run 3.1 miles w/o stopping. She'd walk, sprint, walk, sprint–and beat me! I hated it. I finally worked hard enough that her "cheating" wasn't good enough.

Did that even apply at all to what we're talking about??

At the risk of sounding like a flatterer, in the couple months we've worked together, your suggestions have improved my writing IMMENSELY. I've always thought you were good. Now I think you're stinkin' GOOD. I shudder to think of what my book would be like if I'd published it on my own.

Have a great weekend, Rachelle!

>From a newbie to the industry who admittedly does not know much, yet!
Maybe the reason there is a market for self-publishing now is because there is/ was not enough opportunities from the traditional publishers for new writers.
They recoginize this and have developed another avenue to get books in print, without as much risk.
Also, is the thought that just because someone may choose to pay up front that they will publish anything, regardless of the quality? If this is the case, then that would be really bad.
Again, being new and trying to get an agent and something published is not an easy task. Maybe, just maybe, the industry in some way have bought this upon themselves. My preference is to use the traditional approach if they accept my work, but if they dont, I now have an alternative.

>as a reader I'm torn on this. I want to be able to find a good quality book that I will enjoy.

However,
I'm so freaking tired of what is being publishing now a days in the christian market.
The majority of the books bore me to death. If I see another western with the same plot line I'm going to puke.

The christian market needs more books with edge. More Angela hunts and less love fest with predictable plots where the herorine escapes with only a scratch. I want to see a main character die because of their choices. I want to see Heartsong books be better with more of an edge.

I also want to keep fiction books around and lets face it, they are dying off.

why won't the traditional publishers go to print-on-demand

>Would bookstores carry self-pubbed books?

My understanding (limited, mind you) is that bookstores stock books that publishers (1) offer at a significantly discounted wholesale price and (2) guarantee full refunds for copies unsold.

To my knowledge, no vanity press offers those incentives to bookstores. Why would they? Their target market is the writer, not readers.

>Not only has the RWA revoked Harlequin's status (and I suspect they'll be doing the same to Thomas Nelson now, too), but the SFWA took a very strong stance (basically, status revoked as long as this imprint exists), and the MWA has threatened to revisit the issue after another deadline for another issue.

Harlequin Horizons and WestBow Press aren't self-publishers. They're vanity publishers. The customer does not get to keep all the profit, even though they paid all the expenses. The customer pays the outrageous initial fees (plus all the upselling the sales person will try to do) and gets only a percentage of the books' profits (in Hh's case, 50% of net). So Harlequin and Author Solutions will take over 50% of each sale the author-customer makes–because remember, net means after expenses, so those have to come out first–but the a-c does *all* the work to make the sale.

There's no sales force to help them get books into stores around the country, no publicist to help drum up publicity (unless you pay for an even more outrageous package and really, how much effort are they going to go to? They already have your money).

Go read the 600+ comments on the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books blog on this subject and see why it's a genuinely bad deal for writers. (There are also a few threads on Dear Author). Go check out Writer Beware and see what they're saying about it. Read the SFWA's response and understand why so many of us are vehemently opposed to this venture. It's bad. It's really bad. It's trading on good brand names (I include WestBow Press in this) to take money from writers who may not understand just how uphill this battle really is.

If you don't want to go with a commercial publisher, at least do a lot of research first into self- and vanity-publishing. Find out what your options are. See why vanity publishing isn't a good idea. If your goal is more readers than what's in your Christmas card address list, don't throw away the book you spent months or years on just to have it printed between a couple pages of colored cardstock.

>One aspect of this debate that hasn't been touched on much is the advantage agents and editors provide in the form of collaboration.

Sure, every writer should have a few careful readers of late-stage work, but having several more careful readers before publication can turn a good book into a great one.

Without Maxwell Perkins, The Great Gatsby would not be what it is.

>Self-publishing is akin to paying someone to marry you. Maybe I'm just needy, but I would never be able to believe it was the "real thing". I NEED the assurance that my books are readable, enjoyable, etc. I can only get that through the unbiased opinion of an agent or publisher.

>The comments are so intelligent and seem to be covering all aspects of this issue, so I don't feel like I need to add much.

However, just want to make clear that my thoughts today come in context of my earlier post (HERE), in which I acknowledged the positives of publishers changing their business models and allowing authors and readers more direct connection with each other, without so many middlemen and gatekeepers. I firmly agree with Marty Coleman, above, who said "fighting the trend is thinking fearfully." But I'm trying to open up thinking about all aspects of this.

Of course, if you put this in context of Nathan Bransford's assertion that the entire industry will be moving to e-books sooner rather than later (HERE), it puts another whole spin on the issue. How readers shop for books is the gigantic unanswered question here. How long will brick & mortar stores survive? If we are all shopping for books "virtually" and rarely even walk into a bookstore, then books from big publishers definitely will be side-by-side with self-pubbed books on the virtual bookshelf. It will be harder for the average consumer to differentiate. I guess the question becomes, "does it matter?"

To me, it does. But maybe it won't to the average consumer.

>(Disclaimer, I have no ties to anyone)
If I am not mistaken, Westbow does offer the book stores the same buy-back option if they dont sell the book.

More importantly, why is the prevailing thought here that just because a book is self-published that it somehow will always be poorly written and poorly produced?

>I don't like change either, and I'm sort of watching with trepidation.

However I'm not worried that the new system will be bad, it will just be different. The current "gatekeepers" will be replaced with new "gatekeepers". The cream will always still rise to the top.

Honestly, it seems like agents talk about how hard it is to sell a book these days. Something obviously has to give. I realize the next phase might be worse for awhile, but eventually it will work itself out. And anything has to be better than what we have now.

>My sense is that publishers are seeing the writing on the wall– writers are already finding ways to circumvent the "gate" publishers are keeping. With an account through Lightening Source, anyone can get books made and listed in Books in Print. Then viola– you're available on Amazon and B&N websites. That means the benefit publishers traditionally leveraged– exclusivity and the bankroll for an offset print run–is being eroded by new technologies. Without making a value statement, I can totally see why a publisher would want to try to insert itself into the self-publishing process as a way to find new revenue.

>A lot of badly written books make it through now because someone had connections to someone somewhere. Met so and so at convention. We drank a beer together. My brother-in-law plays golf with his lawyer and so on. Maybe it is time for a change.

>I could be wrong but I think bookstores will be even more cautious about what they stock if there are lots more books published through the self-pub route.

As a business owner myself, I know a poor-quality product isn't going to make my business much money. Though I don't own a bookstore, I'd be skeptical of accepting the authors' hype about their books and rely on a publisher's marketing department to tell me which books are good enough that the publisher will invest money to promote them.

To me, the bigger threat to traditional publishing seems to be the proliferation of small publishing "companies" that say they vet the books they accept and sell them for extremely low prices online.

Some do a good job of editing and producing quality ebooks, but others are disappointing. As a reader, I like the variety of books offered, but still rely on word of mouth or prior experience with an author's work to screen my purchases. I only buy unfamiliar books online if they offer the first chapter or random excerpts to read before I buy them. If the book seems to fit my taste and expectations, I don't care if it is self-published

>Self-publishing has a long history as an alternative to mainstream publishing. Many female writers, for example, were self-published in the 18th C because the market was difficult for them to break into (that shouldn't be a surprise). Self-publishing is independent and libertarian. I toast self-publishers because they are independent and make their own way in the world. Will they publish garbage? Sure, but the garbage will exist w/ nothing more than ISBN #s and very few, if anybody, will see it. Good literature will prevail and see the light of day (I hope)!

>Rachelle your thoughts are well plotted out, thank you. As someone who is striving to succeed in the publishing world by traditional means this appears to be an alarming trend. But as an e-book owner I have access to just about everything. I've stumbled upon some questionable material. And you know what? I've dismissed it. I base most of my purchases off reviews and believe great insight lies with the masses. Also, my Kindle allows me to sample the first chapter for free. Already I am a gate keeper of sorts.

I liken this new trend to professional produced movies and You Tube. You Tube has it's value. I enjoy it, my kids enjoy it, probably a little too much but we both understand there is a difference. Perhaps that is the case with this new publishing landscape. It is slippery terrain, yes. But perhaps there is not far to fall and nothing to be afraid of.

As for vanity presses who want to suck dollars and dreams out of vulnerable writers pockets, I say shame on you.

As for writers who choose small presses with limited distribution I say think twice my friends, pray about it and if you choose this route, Godspeed. However in all situations be grounded in reality when pursuing these methods. Yes, marketing does fall primarily square on the authors shoulders in all cases but distribution is key in the world we live in right now. Will it be in six months when the world wakes up and realizes they already have an e-reader (Nathan's post) probably.

As for straight to e-book, part of my dream is seeing my book in print, bound between soft or hard covers. For now simply an e-book cheapens the dream a little. I'm old school that way.

>Will they publish garbage? Sure, but the garbage will exist w/ nothing more than ISBN #s and very few, if anybody, will see it. Good literature will prevail and see the light of day (I hope)!

Which is why it's a bad idea for the writer to give their money to Harlequin and WestBow Press. The chances of recouping your costs are very, very low. We know this because we can study the history of these endeavors. There are much cheaper options out there that can give you the same product and increase the likelihood of recouping your costs.

Oh, and if you're wondering how sleazy Harlequin has been on this: they admitted they would be marketing this to their author-customers as a way to be a Harlequin author, but that the books themselves wouldn't be marketed as Harlequin products.

In other words, they'll go on a date with you as long as you promise not to tell anyone you guys went out.

(Now that they said they'll drop the Harlequin name from the line, I don't know what else will change).

>I'm hoping all this means that consumers will eventually go straight to their favourite publishers to buy books, and that those publishers will continue to be 'gatekeepers', while readers and publishers both save money thanks to bypassing chain stores and other retailers.

I also hope that these gatekeepers find the burden of huge slush piles somewhat relieved as the less persistent/talented/studied give up the chase in favour of easy self-publishing, and therefore editors might have more time to help make great books greater.

Who knows, we may even go back to the days where newspaper reviews covered pages instead of a few column inches, as readers search for what's good amid all the dreck on the bookshop shelves.

I hope. I hope a lot of things. The whole revolution we're in is depressing in some ways but exciting too.

>My 4-year-old self-publishes her own books. She takes looseleaf papers decorated with crayon pictures, adds some uninteligible scribble, and she's got a book! My 7-year-olds are more sophisticated.

Self-publication has no credence and should gain none. You hit the nail on the head, Rachelle, authors need to be validated by a higher authority than themselves, or readers for that matter.

>Rachelle, I agree with you. When I buy a book in the future, I don't want to have to scrutinize each one to see if it has been self-published. I can't help but believe that quality will go down and that authors and publishing in general will be devalued somewhat. Guess we'll see… just wish it wasn't all going down this road.

>2 of 2

"By entering self-publishing, they're going 180 degrees away from that. And they're doing it for the money, because otherwise they might just go out of business altogether. (I get that part.)"

You're clearly right here. All I would suggest is that you expand the idea of "they're doing it for the money" to include the current model. In effect, what you're seeing the industry do (overall) is respond with the same corporate spreadsheet-centric mindset that has dominated the business for more than a decade. Relative to self-publishing they don't care about books, literature, content, authors — nothing but dollars. My argument is that in many ways that's already the case.

"I just don't see how any of this ends up serving readers."

The primary reader problem is filtering. How do readers find good books? There will have to be new 'gatekeepers' (curataors, whatever) who tackle this problem, but in the age of social networking I think it's doable. (In this case the internet causes and solves the same problem. Hopefully.)

"It serves writers, yes, but at what cost? Will the work of all writers be devalued?"

Economically, yes. Critically, no.

"Worse—will writers lose the motivation to become master craftsmen?"

No. Nobody ever went into writing with a love of craft foremost in their mind and expected to get rich. People who love craft love craft first. (I love craft.)

"But to raise self-publishing to the level it seems to be going, and to have it focused on fiction… sorry, I'm not excited about it."

Think if it as a transition. A lot of people are going to get interested, a lot of people will much around with the new toys, but in the end very few people will 'survive' the experience. There will be a massive inflow, consolidation, and a purge.

"What are your thoughts about self-publishing becoming a much bigger business than it already is?"

It's going to be a service-driven industry, and at some point in the future (not too far distant) the products (books/e-content) will be commodities. And that's not really a bad thing.

"How might it serve you as a reader—or not?"

More choice. More work, yes, but more choice.

"How might it serve you as a writer—or not?"

More opportunity to connect directly with readers. After that, it's all gravy.

At the end of the day I understand your concerns. But I think the momentum in all this is not driven by bad writers it's driven by ease of distribution — and that's something publishing houses can also take advantage of. There will always be books, big (and medium and small) publishers, and celebrated (and special) authors. The only difference is that there will no longer be the kind of exclusivity you talked about, and I see that as a good thing. I don't like private clubs and exclusionary groups and one group of people making decisions for everyone else — particularly on the pretext of cultural purity.

Let's see what the mutts can do.

>Hi Rachelle,
While I do agree there is much in the self-pub world that lacks both meaningful substance and artistic integrity, I would disagree that the trad. publishers primarily see their first priority as serving as gatekeepers of literary quality. In my experience, the bottom line presented to me from a traditional publishing house was a financial one: "Does the author have a substantial-enough platform to make the deal financial viable?" The exec at the publishing house I spoke with even said, "I hate that it's this way." The author's MESSAGE is not of foremost importance, it seems. Since when is financial viability – over and above the value of the message – a value of God's Kingdom? Maybe we need a different publishing model; and the reason so many self-pub options are springing up is to fill that gap that traditional pub. has left. We can also trust the market to decide what quality is: If it's not selling because it's junk, it won't matter who the publisher was. I'd welcome your thoughts. Thanks for the post.

>I have to say I agree with your post. As an unpublished writer I will never self-publish. Yes, I do love my writing and believe in it, but I know it can be better. There is always room for improvement. That's why I'm going to be looking for an agent. I know nothing about editing, publishing or any kind of marketing – I write. Why would I want to self-publish knowing nothing of the sorts?
Plus, as an avid reader, I also want to pick up a book to read knowing it's the best it can be.
I give props to those few who've made a success of self-publishing. I myself, will never be one of them.

>Thanks for your post. I agree that non-fiction and self-publishing are a good match, especially for local history, writing about arts and craft and memoir etc. I'm currently working on a non-fiction historical project that I hope to have published some time down the road when the research and writing are done. I know of several outfits that can produce a good looking book. I also know that I'll have to get an editor to check every line so it will be a good product.

Self published fiction I've seen always looks desperate. Even among those writers I personally know. When they talk at writer's gatherings, they sound frustrated or dismissive of evil agents and publishers. I just don't want to go there. Getting published is a hard slog, but I'm in it for the long haul because I love to write and have stories to tell.

>As an unpublished writer of fiction, I will never self-publish. As a reader, those books don't interest me. Worthy books can be self-published, but I consider it a form of printing, not publishing. If my writing captures the attention of enough publishing professionals to garner a contract, it validates the quality of my writing in a way that self-publishing does not. I know many people don't feel this way, but I do.

>When all books are in digital form there's no selection process. Most people are able to set up a blog, so anyone will be able to publish a book. Or have I misunderstood?

I see the establishment of self-publishing arms as just a cynical way for publishers who see their revenues falling in the face of Sony readers and such like to earn more profits. Money, pure and simple. they have no regard for god literature, but then when did quality come into making money, which is what publishing is all about?

I'm not sure the selection process works as well as you say it does. If you have a platform you can get your book published. You don't even have to write it yourself. Pretty pictures will do. Katie Price a la Jordan here in Britain comes to mind. Her books are appalling, if you can call them books.

Helena

>Ugh, I think I'll just stick to speaking & blogging for awhile. It's all too messy for me. :/ Interesting reading all the perspectives, tho.

>I'm always amazed that "Christian" writers, agents, and publishers almost NEVER (on blogs) show any concern about the books serving to win souls to Christ. It always is so much selfishness showing through. Me, Me, Me.
AND Publishers want authors to PROVE to them that they have the platform to sell books. WELL: If someone has the capability to sell the books: WHY do they need a publisher? They can self pub, sell to their market; and if it's good, word of mouth will spread it all over. The author would make the big money they deserve.
HOWEVER, some writers actually are writing to serve God, and win souls. They actually CARE about God and souls. Those are the people I always try to encourage…God sees your pure motives and HE will use your work as HE wishes. It appears to me that such writers are far too rare.
I don't care about all this controversy about the new self pub with T N and H. I care about what God cares about: the people WE SHOULD be winning to Christ.

>I'm with you, Rachelle. I've worked hard to perfect my craft, and I want the stamp of recognition that traditional publishing gives. I also think self-publishing as a norm will shift the business from the (somewhat flawed) meritocracy it is now to a plutocracy based on the author's ability to pay. And that really scares me, because I'm broke!

As a reader, I share your fears. I'm also an editor and have seen that slush firsthand. I don't want it out there in the marketplace, cluttering things up and making it more difficult for readers to find the really good books.

The industry is broken, but I don't think this is the way to fix it.

>Maybe everyone's looking at this all wrong.

For the agent: Your slush pile will be greatly reduced, considerably on the "seriously not good" side.

For authors: those of us who value the filtering process will continue to send our material to agents, and since the reduction of the less than stellar material has freed up more time for the agent, a quality writer will actually have a greater chance of being traditionally published.

And everyone is happy!

>I agree, Rachelle. I agree.

>I was going to respond, but the conversation is just so big…I don't know if my voice is needed.

I am published, and I am a full SCBWI member, but if my peers knew how I really felt they would tar and feather me. I really disagree with the constructs of traditional publishing as the only gauge of worth. And this is coming from someone who has experienced success there.

For some reason, the suggestion to self-publish gets viewed as career suicide from my peers, and even worse, someone who self-publishes is somehow slapping the face of anyone who worked hard to be published "the right way".

I have been terrified to even suggest that I want to try to do some ideas outside the confines of the submission process and just make something fun I can have control of.

Even though I am published, it is from two small publishers. I am continuing to shop my work out in the bigger arena now. But it is SLOW. And there are no guarantees. And a truth about my career is I have built up a small local fan base as a presenter at schools and libraries. I make a good living at it. I often get asked "when will your next book be out?". I can't wait for the sloooowwwwww publishing process to catch up to the reality of the here-and-now of my career. For a 5th grade fan who is asking me when my next book is out, I need to offer her something soon because she might be going to her first homecoming dance by the time that happens if I am trapped in fear of abiding by "the right way". My career is happening now, and I should be able to bring ideas to life now without worrying about getting in trouble for for a stigma. Shouldn't I have the right to take a little control to do what I need to continue staying viable?

People should be able to make a choice that is right for them without fearing being ostracized for breaking arbitrary imposed rules of engagement by an industry that feels they are more than just a collective group of similar businesses, but the rulemakers. They are not the Society of Publishing Standards and Practices. There are no Ten Commandments of Publishing. At least not real ones. They are just a collective of professionals that want you to play on their terms. Agents and editors want you to think these guidelines are in place.

I used to think that as harsh as they can be sometimes, agents and editors are our friends and they want to help us grow. Then I read elitist comments with words like "special club", "gatekeepers", and "exclusivity" and it makes me think, "shame on you a little, Rachelle". Being in a position to make or break someone's career at one's specific place of employment should not be equated to an overall sense of entitlement to decide what is or is not "exclusive". Stating "this book is not right for us", should not be equated to "You are a failure at writing and you can't join our special club". Agents and editors don't hold all the keys to Eden. Only one. That specific one where they work. There are many other doors. There are even back doors, and you can't judge someone you didn't let in because they found another way in. Some people are their own gatekeepers in life.

(continued…)

>(continued…)

Some say, self-publishing causes a flood of crappy books? You know what? This current system isn't the best at filtering that. Publishing houses aren't the perfect distillery of quality they want you to believe. Otherwise we wouldn't have books about, "Mommy Bear Wuvs You So So So Much" or books about "Going Rogue". Bad books get made and good books slip through the cracks too. I do believe all writers should be subject to a litmus test. But this elitist "gatekeeper" mentality has got to stop.

I feel a big problem with the idea that agents or editors are somehow the "gatekeepers". As if publishing professionals are the Knights Templar, defending the very sanctity of creative writing holding the Gates of Publishing as some noble holy crusade. I find it a very elitist statement, and unfortunately MANY agents and editors feel their jobs are this holy crusade. I understand it is your job and you take it seriously. But I am a careerist too. i take what I do very seriously too. And I feel I am just as capable of discerning a means to be successful. But to imply that the quality of information somehow belongs to those who work for the top businesses involved, I disagree with. An athlete that trains for years to be an Olympian is not a failure if they don't make it to the Olympics. There is more than one measure of success. the rules are changing.

Comics professionals actually gain momentum and fame and fandom from peers and fans alike by "making their own way". Its a red badge of courage in this . Now, agencies and publishing houses are finally seeing the worth of "graphic novels" and will argue that the old rules still apply to this new type of publishing; all the while comics professionals are getting flack for continuing what they have always done.

It has been discussed that when an author self-publishes, agents look at your ISBN figures to determine if you are anybody they should work with. Its unfortunate its such a stark black and white.

People should be able to find their own way without the fear wrong-doing. The rules are changing. The way information is distributed is changing.

I know people may disagree with this, and I didn't mean to be critical. Thanks for letting me share.

>From what I've seen, most self-pubbed book look CHEAP. Who wants to pay for inferior quality? And I was dismayed by Nathan's blog pro-tech stance about e-books–you'd think he invented the Kindle or Nook! Frankly, reading an e-book seems too much like work, perhaps good for those in the pub industry or journalists like myself who need info fast.

But I doubt an e-book will take over the market as Nathan predicts. The e-book will be like ebay to the antiques market: yes, it'll serve a purpose and may appeal to some readers, but there's nothing like engaging all the senses to appreciate an experience fully. Instant graticification is usually over in an instant.

>Rachelle, we're on a similar wavelength today. I'm actually feeling daunted and saddened by e-books and self-publishing. I put them in the same category of "the vastly changing publishing world." I have had the privilege of doing school author visits, and handing children the books they've purchased along with my personalized autograph. There are few feelings quite as wonderful. How will I accomplish that same thing as an author when there is no book? It boggles my mind, this lean toward a book-less society. Equally disturbing to me is self-publishing for all the reasons you mentioned. It took a lot of work to break through. Having done so, the climb hasn't gotten much easier. But I am willing to stick with it because I believe in my work and writing. However, you're right. If suddenly, anyone can publish a book, well, that kind of pursuit honestly feels very empty to me. I want to have that backing of an agent, a publisher. I need someone else besides me to say, "Your work is worth us spending money on." That is an exhilarating experience that will no longer happen if self-publishing takes hold. I'm concerned with you. Good things come to those who wait. It is worth the wait and tenacity — it really is!

>I'M AN AGENT! I'M POWERFUL! is soon to become a thing of the past in publishing.

Why shouldn't everyone be happy that it's now easier for anyone to have a shot to see if their dream might come true?

Maybe agents could help writers more, rather than mocking them so much. It has been proven they are not excellent gatekeepers. The Shack is just one example of 10,000 potentials.

>Last year at about this time, I self-published a collection of short fiction. My blog readers had asked me for it and according to publishing wisdom, it had no commercial value. However, I had an audience who were ready to plunk down their money on ME.

Last September, I published a second one. Again, my readers are thrilled. So'm I; I'm making a profit. I am participating in a program where I'm able to give e-copies away to our deployed troops. I get to earn money AND give back, all with two little anthologies of short fiction that have no commercial value. Pretty slick.

You can also buy downloads of both anthologies (for about half the standard $9.99 price of an e-book) through B&N, thanks to an arrangement with Smashwords.

So self-published books ARE available at Barnes and Noble. Maybe not on the shelves, but that's okay with me. I did this for my existing readers. I've gained new ones. And now that you can take your nook on a field trip to visit the Mother Ship and walk out with my $5 books (Well, $4.98 to be precise)… Hey, that's just pennies in my pocket.

I don't know if it works at B&N, but if you go to Smashwords, you can sample The Demo Tapes before you buy them, too. It's a nice way to make an informed decision.

>Hm. Folks, I have just got to make two points.

1. The world doesn't actually owe you anything. Agents don't owe you representation, and publishers don't owe you publication. Nobody's stopping you from writing the very best book you can, but nobody owes it to you to publish anything less than the best, either.

Not even if God told you to write it.

2. Yes, there are a teeny, tiny number of highly successful books that started out as self-published books. I wish people would stop waving those around as examples, though, because for every one of them there are thousands– no, tens of thousands– of self-published books that sold a dozen copies and fizzled into obscurity, sometimes after costing their authors hundreds or thousands of dollars.

>I'm an avid reader and a new writer. I look forward to the day when one of my books is published, but not this way. I want to struggle and learn. I want to be able to say, one day, that I'm a published author, that I went through the rigors of being accepted and put through the publishing process and came out on top in the end. If I self-publish, I can't say that. I won't say that.

I browse Harper/Collins Authonomy site occasionally and read some of the stories new authors have put up. A few are really good, but most are only good for lining the hamster cage. I would stop going to my local book chain if their shelves were crammed with these types of books. I would spend my entire time with a red pen editing the book instead of reading it.

It would also be a shame that I would have to read a bunch of junk before finding one worthy of reading. I have my favorite authors that I will buy anything they put out, but I also like to try new authors as well. Am I going to have to read the first few pages of a new book to see if it's worth spending $7 or more on?

I NEED THE GATEKEEPER!!!

>I think this was an extremely well-written and well-conceived essay. I could not agree with you more. There is so much fiction out there that is simply garbage. And people enjoy reading that stuff. I think we need to raise standards for reading instead of lowering them. By allowing people to self-publish, I think poorer quality books will be published, and standards for reading will decline.

I read a great deal of fiction, and I read theology as well. However, in recent years, I have started to read more classical fiction rather than modern literary fiction. This push to self-publishing books will only increase my reading of classical fiction.

>Isn't this more of a vanity press scheme then classic, Web 2.0esq self-publishing?

Here's my take:

This is doomed. All it had going for it was the name. Now the business model isn't even worthy of calling it true self-publishing. The successful self-publishers I know (and I know a few) wouldn't even consider it as an option for self-publishing.

>I agree, Rachelle, with your comment in this thread about the difficulty of distinguishing between self-pubbed and tradtional books on the virtual bookshelf. If I'm buying a book about, say, gardening, I want to know if it's a book by a small press or by an individual hobbyist. Sometimes I need to click a bit on Amazon to figure this out. That's why I hope bookstores will always be around. You can tell so much by actually seeing and flipping through the books (and bookstores are a better filter these days than Amazon, which lists more or less everything, no matter how bad).

>Just a quick note to Anonymous 11:43: You have badly misread my post on authors saying God led them to write their book. In the entire history of this blog, and my postings on Twitter, I've never once said that I "laugh off" ANY writers, and I would especially never say that about someone who is following God's leading to write.

"In the trash with anything that God may have led someone to do" is YOUR quote, not mine, and very badly misrepresents me and everything I stand for. Go back and read my full blog post on "God Told Me To Write This" and you'll see that you are totally off the mark. It would be nice if you would be clear on the facts before making such a misguided comment on my blog. But I think you know exactly what you're doing, and that's why you're anonymous.

I'm NOT anonymous, and proudly stand up for what I believe. I represent Christian authors and I love and respect that fact that every single one of them is following God's leading in their writing.

>One of the things I’ve considered is that there is self-publishing and there is self-publishing. To make it clearer, perhaps we should say that there are those who self-publish and there are the self-publishing enthusiasts. The difference is about like that between the person who puts a spoiler on a Honda and the guy who goes down to the track and drag races in his GTO. Some people aren’t interest in self-publishing as much as they are interested in getting their book in print. That seems to be the people Thomas Nelson and Harlequin are catering to. Then there are the self-publishing enthusiasts. These are the weekend publishers who want to get their hands dirty with the publishing process. They may not be the experts that those experienced people in the publishing industry are, but they know how to get the job done and they’ll become the experts if you give them enough weekends.

If we ignore beginner’s luck, in any industry, the enthusiasts often produce at a level equal or exceeding that of the seasoned professionals. They’re able to because they don’t have the schedule and budget constraints the professionals do. If this hold true for self-publishing enthusiasts—there’s no reason to think it won’t—then most of the successes in self-publishing will come from the enthusiasts, but the typical self-published book will either be of poor quality or will be deep in the red.

>Disclaimer – I am a published author. A professionally published author with ten books which earned me advances and then royalties from established professional publishing houses, books which have been vetted, professionally designed, edited, and distributed via proper channels.

I've been where many of those people who feel rejected by publishing companies now stand. I KNOW HOW THAT FEELS. But I have said before, and I will say it again – publishing is a privilege, not a right. Just because somebody can string three words together into a sentence doesn't mean that that sentence automatically deserves publication.

And the problem arises because people who THINK they are writing deathless prose and are being rejected because of… whatever… but certainly not because their writing is not good enough – these people want not just publication, but adulation. They want the "writer's life" that is the fabled one, the one that J K Rowling and Neil Gaiman and Stephen King lead. Please note, that's THREE NAMES, and the reason you know them is because they are so uncommon. Most of us writers lead lives on the ragged edge rather than wearing expensive jewellery at private parties every night while we aren't being flown around the world in first-class comfort by publishers kowtowing at our feet.

Here's the thing. I understand the dream – I've lived it, I'm living it now. But dreaming is often far removed from reality. There are people who might have the money to throw away on projects like getting their beloved novel "published" – but how is the average reader to know, if such "works" are shoved cheek by jowl into the distribution channels, that of the two books shelved side by side one is a book deemed worthy by using a set of stringent standards and vetted by serried ranks of professionals and the other is a book deemed worthy by simply and solely the author him/herself?

>Alma,

Who is Neil Gaiman?

>Rachelle, I just want to say THANK YOU for speaking out for authors everywhere–both those who are already published and those who hope to be–by pointing out some of the practical and ethical pitfalls in Harlequin and Thomas Nelson's new business models.

Clearly, if your main concern was for your business you would have remained silent and cozied up to Thomas Nelson for some of that referral fee money they say they'll be paying. But you stood up and spoke the truth no matter what the risk, like a modern day Ester, and I salute you for it.

Soldier on, sister. We need you, and you make Christian writers proud, which is more than I can say for Thomas Nelson.

>I'm a member of RWA and this morning I had over 100 message in my inbox because of this bit of madness and here is what will happen in the end, NOTHING. The deal will go ahead and we will all move on to Oprah ending her show in 2011 or something more current.

>In some of the voices, I hear anger at 'traditional' publishing, and its gatekeeper function. There's also the automatic assumption that more choice = better.

At some point, though, quantity can become un-filterable. It becomes 'noise.' And we, as readers and writers, should care about that.

In the 'wave of the future' publishing, we're not talking going from 10 to 20 ketchup brands on the shelf. Imagine 4,000 different ketchup bottle on the shelf, vying for your attention. The explosion potential is exponential.

I see the concern that if there are 'gate keepers,' (agents, publishers), then who gets to say who those gatekeepers are, and what if you don't agree with their 'gate-keeping' tastes, etc? Got that.

But as a rallying cry, a "Do the opposite; Screw the Man!" mentality is a highly reactive approach. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

In fact, it has the potential to introduce new, worse problems, like bringing in mongooses (mongeese?) to solve a rat problem. You end up with a rat AND a mongoose problem. This happens all the time when people have highly reactive responses.

Some say they feel quite competent choosing good books, and would love the opportunity to select from an even larger sea of books, but that's an anecdotal experience, and not generalizable to the general public.

Some others say they want the opportunity to put their book head to head with others, which I applaud, but . . . who will notice *your* book out there when there are 40,0000 other books beside it? The line of books simply becomes too long to view. Chances are that people will tune out WAY before they get to yours.

(And in this 'brave new world' of publishing, in this long line of books, few will be vetted in any more than a marginal way, many not at all, and people have no guidance on choosing. And yes, people like some guidance. I always ask for referrals before I choose a doctor or a plumber or a tax guy. Books are no different. Publishers are like referral sources.)

I'll mention this as well: psychological research has consistently shown that an increase in quantity of choices has the effect of LOWERING people's self-reports about their sense of happiness and contentment.

Think about it: you start wondering, "What good thing am I missing out on? Is there a better ketchup brand out there, that I somehow missed on the shelf of 4000?"

People are much more likely to tune out, than wade into, a highly crowded, disorganized, un-vetted landscape of books. And since few people are reading anyhow, we really should be concerned about that.

Paradoxically, it could have the effect of NARROWING people's attention, so they focus more on the few well-known authors that they already have made a choice about. Which could result in fewer new authors get picked up, b/c people are sticking with the bestsellers they already know.

And, of course, people should remember that they can open their own publishing company at any time. The 'gatekeepers' being railed about are not legislated entities. Go ahead and become an agent or open your own publishing company. Don't just complain about the problem, become part of the solution.

>Perhaps bloggers are the new gatekeepers? I already make all my buying decisions based on friends recc's and the opinions on a chosen few blogs.

>How it gets published is not as important as what it does after it is published. The market decides what is "good.". if no one buys it, it doesn't really matter how "good" or "bad" it is. If people could make money from a room full of monkeys with typewriters, they would.

So the edge will continue to go to books that offer, in the case of genre fiction, dependable entertainment value. Getting it in front of people is only half the battle–they need to like it, too.

>If agents and editors aren't the gatekeepers, then the bookstores & chains will take over that role–and they won't want to crowd their shelves with inferior products or poor sellers, no matter who published what. So if someone wants to pay to have a few books to pass around to friends & relatives, then the only person who's paying the price is that writer, literally.

I do wish publishers would reward agents for finding *fresh & original* novels instead of the same old thing (e.g. vampires). Aren't agents tired of jumping on the latest not-so-new bandwagon of books? Isn't it more challenging to start/create a different trend?

>TO Rachelle Gardner

Not that it is my business, but I really do believe I too recall reading in Mr. Hyatt's blog and yours that one of the top ways to have your query disregarded is to say GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE THIS BOOK. That may be what the person meant when they said IN THE TRASH.

>Still, there's a big difference between becoming published by selling the print rights to your book for even a small advance, say $7,500, versus paying money to get published.

yeah, it's how well it sells that really matters in the end, but as a writer, the goal lis to SELL your stuff, right? that's what traditional publishers are good for.

>REF: GOD TOLD ME

Rachelle, I just went to your Wednesday Aug.12, 2009 blog and saw that you said 'even includes God.' I also went to June 17, 2008 blog, and one of them you apparently in a teasing way said God told you to write the blog.
I understand what you mean and so forth, but I also see why others could be offended.

>Horizons is just a side-business that aims to make the slushpile profitable by being able to refer all rejecitons to the for-fee self-publishing arm of the business. Then, sure, if you can self-sell 10,000 copies, Harlequin itself might choose to give you a traditional go. I think it's a smart business move for H.

For the writers, no change. If you get rejected, you can self-publish. If you sell 10,000 or so copies on your own, the bigs will look at you. Same as it ever was…

>Man! I've just tried to read most everything. I do think Rachelle desreves a lots of credit and thanks for being on the side of the authors.

>Maybe self-published books could have a flag stamped on the front, like "Self-Published" printed in a red banner strip located just beneath the title? That way the reader would know.

>Well said, M. Hayatt. American letters was built on self publishing and a hungry readership.

Literary exclusivity, by definition limits both content and readership.

I take strong exception to Rachael's musing that marketing adds "value" to a work of art. I see many books which secured Industry deals for sale on dollar racks six months later. And other's, from small regional, or co-op houses that will be in my heart forever.

Please, "publishing industry" get the covers on everything in your slush piles and let the readers' dollars decide the value.

>Rachelle – as an author, the "lure" of getting a book published is to have my story reach an audience. Exclusivity has nothing to do with what appeals to me about it. I don't actually know any authors who write because they want to be in an exclusive club, though I'm sure they exist.

Also, you state "Major publishers have always been in the business of culling through the masses to find the cream of the crop." I'd have to disagree. Major publishers have always been in the business of making money. Their way of doing that has been to publish the books they think have the best chance of doing that – often the cream of their crop – and, in some rare cases, books that simply "must" be published, profits be damned. Still, it's a business, as it must be.

I'd note that self publishers who don't reach a market will go out of business just like traditional publishers do, so there might still be incentive to "actually write a good book."

I also don't think major publishers are the arbiters of literary taste, the responsibility you think they've taken on. That means that readers are no part of the taste equation, doesn't it? So if no one buys a book off a list, the publisher has defined… what, exactly? Also, frankly, the celebrity picture books and novels (and inspirational stories) that I saw at the bookstore today would tell you that's publishers do more than just focus on being arbiters of literary taste, even in the fiction realm. It's a business.

I think the Harlequin situation brings up a couple issues which are getting muddled together here in a conversation about self-publishing in general. To me, the big issue is whether Harlequin is using their reputation and position of "authority" to prey upon writers in some way. That's not a good situation for anyone, and I firmly agree with you that it probably benefits no one but Harlequin.

I don't happen to think self-publishing spells the end of traditional publishing, but I also don't think it's a bad thing. Readers are smart. Quality matters. And if a book is good… honestly… do you care about how many rejections the author got or how many years they wrote or how many gatekeepers they impressed? I don't. I care that I liked the book.

Thanks for kicking off and continuing a fascinating conversation!

>Well, I hadn't planned on jumping back into this (and I had to turn off the 'notice' function after my cellphone burned out last night with all the replies to this thread!), but here goes again:

I self-publish. On the web. Hundreds of people read my fiction, in more than 30 countries. They read it for free, and I give it away gladly. I am not looking to get rich like Neil Gaiman (who might giggle at that) or J. K. Rowling. I do not want to belong to an exclusive club. I expect that if people do not like my stories, they will not read them. They may even send me a rude note telling me WHY they do not like them, or blog about me to their friends about how much I suck. Or, they may write to me and tell me they haven't stopped crying, or laughing, or thinking about what I wrote. And that is why I take the risk of writing and putting myself out there, vulnerable to public opinion.

I give it away from free, but I do not plan to buy it first. Horizon is a vanity press – absolutely true. Authors who publish with them are unlikely to make much money, if any – absolutely true. People who get sucked in to vanity presses without doing their homework may be crushed and disappointed – also true, although avoidable and really caveat emptor in my opinion. I have no trouble with any of these facts.

But I still have a problem with the idea that someone else needs to vet my work before the public does. I still have trouble with the gatekeeper concept that many here have applauded. If I publish on the web, and no one reads my work, or everyone hates my work, then surely that is a judgement worth having (even if personally painful)? I would not read Meyer's work with a gun to my head; I know people who literally live by What Would Bella Do? We may sit in different corners on this issue, but I would never dream of telling a Twilight fan s/he couldn't read the book. My children all read stuff I gagged over – the rule was if they picked up a book, we wouldn't say anything about it. Their choice.

Traditional publishing still has a role to play, but it may no longer be the dominant force it has been. Publishing on the web, publishing on cell phone (mobific), even publishing on Twitter – yes, even a full-length novel – all are possible and interesting and coming soon to a portable device near you. It's exciting – but it's just another game in town, not the only one.

I still don't understand the level of anger and fear – how does my publishing a book (and having the effrontery to 'call myself an author') affect a 'real' writer? How does it devalue what that writer accomplished? There is a punitive flavour to this that worries me – if I haven't suffered pain and humiliation for my art, it isn't real? Is there truly a measurable kind of virtue that goes along with rejection?

Colour me confused.

>Steve, that also is well said.

It seems to me, following the young adult market, that commercial success increasingly follows the degree that reader responses go viral in social networking media.

Self publishing and micro-publishing might turn out to succeed or fail based on whether or not the author knows where the book's likely readers live on the net.

It puzzles me, if the main-line publishing industry actually lives up to it's promotion of being effective in distributing "good" books to their optimum markets, that I haven't seen an agent web site that asks prospective cients the question: Where can we reach the readers you think would be interested in your book?

I suspect they don't because they are still looking at the market through a piece of pipe, the retail chains and book clubs. So, the question is irrelevant in that context.

But it is NOT irrelevant to the transaction of delivering the author's story or message to the people who would buy it if they knew about it.

Times change, the technology exists and someone will use it first. My bet is that it will be someone who choses to NOT ride on the dinosaur, a self publisher or micro-house.

We'll see.

Adapt or die, I guess.

>Terry Burns claims to be in business because he wants to help authors. He said he wants to be a matchmaker.
I have no reason to not believe him; and that's the attitude agents should have.
I don't think Mr. Burns is anon 12:06. Sometimes it's easy to be a detective, as in anon 12:06.

>I agree that some writers only want the "stamp of approval" that comes with major house deals. Even if it never happens and their books go unread. Other writers will try anything to get read. Some will start small but eventually work up to the majors. There's no single path to best-sellerdom. There will only be your path.

>I just read the anon 12:06. If 99.9% of the self-published books fizzle, then why all the big worry?I think the big worry is that they won't fizzle. The worry is that word of mouth and email will have them booming on Amazon and agents will quickly lose their power.

>Sharon made many good points, especially >>I still don't understand the level of anger and fear – how does my publishing a book (and having the effrontery to 'call myself an author') affect a 'real' writer? How does it devalue what that writer accomplished?<<

That echoes my never-answered question to those who want to ban same-sex marriage.

If a woman marries a woman, or a man marries a man, or a beagle marries a pencil sharpener, how does that change the relationship I've had with my opposite-sex wife since 1971?

There's much too much nastiness and intolerance in both debates. The world has changed. Get used to it.

I've been published by major and minor "traditional publishers" and am now working on my sixth self-pubbed book. I prefer self-publishing, but I don't care how other writers get their words to readers.

Michael N. Marcus
author of Become a Real Self-Publisher, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981661742

http://BookMakingBlog.blogspot.com
http://www.SilverSandsBooks.com

>Anon 3:22: You need not worry that comments will be deleted unless they are downright rude/cruel/insulting to a specific person or group. The whole point of this conversation is to bring out the various perspectives, so deleting them would miss the point!

Steve 1:40 am: YES. Totally agree. The growth of the e-book market is going to drive this whole thing.

Sharon 1:49 am: I think your situation is different since you give your fiction away rather than charging people for it. But regarding your statement "I still have a problem with the idea that someone else needs to vet my work before the public does." I think it's very simple. The public wants SOME kind of assurance before they pay money for a product. It's the difference between shopping at a retail store, each one of which has its own standards of quality (some better than others, i.e. Walmart vs. Nordstrom) or shopping at a flea market/garage sale.

The retail store has "vetted" the products and I have a certain quality expectation when I shop there. If I shop at a garage sale, it's buyer beware.

Even when I buy used products on the web (which I've done dozens of times) I take care to shop from sellers with high approval ratings. I just need some assurance I'm not going to waste time and money on a shoddy product.

I think with this metaphor, perhaps you can understand why some people WANT the gatekeepers. It's just an extra layer of assurance.

Many people don't trust the current publishing "gatekeepers." That's fine. I don't really trust the Walmart gatekeepers either. I've learned to shop there only for certain products, but I had to learn the hard way, and I've returned many defective products to that store. As a reader, I don't want to waste time and money on even more trial and error than is already involved in choosing books I like.

Anyway, everyone looks at this differently, and that's okay. Maybe if you don't agree on the need for gatekeepers, you might at least understand why some people DO want them.

In any case, I'm fascinated by all the different angles on this topic.

>Thanks, Christine.

If anyone wants to read what I actually wrote in the past about "God Told Me To Write This," HERE are the two posts.

Bottom line: most Christians try to live their lives according to God's leading. Since I rep many Christian writers, all of them can say the same thing: "God told me to write this." So while it's a valid statement, it doesn't give anyone a leg up on anyone else; it doesn't make me sit up and say, "Now THIS is a writer I must represent!" If you're a Christian writer, it's not an advantage or an extra selling point – it's expected.

>Anon 7:42: Terrific analogy. I guess some of us don't really want to have to work so hard (spend an hour clicking and scrolling, then call Mom and Aunt Sue and Helen from church) for every single book choice.

I would add that in a future of e-books, where they're mostly purchased on the web, and self-published books are mixed in with books from publishing companies: All we need is a good synopsis, the first chapter of the book available to read online, and perhaps peer reviews like they already have on most shopping sites. Then we can all happily choose our books to read. I'd be TOTALLY fine with that.

>I am hoping that the growing use of self publishing services will result in a growing awarness that this does not work as well as traditional publishers.

Authors need to do research before getting into publishing. A lot of them also need to admit that they are not brilliant, and that the professional agents/editors generaly know more about the business – thus if they say that 200,000 words is too long fir a YA fantasy novel, it's probably a good idea to cut it die at least a bit instead if just running to a self publisher.

At least that's my take on it.

~ Katherine Anne

>GOD TOLD ME:

Numerous people for various reasons loosely/wrongly say "God told me… .. …"

Many people say; God told them this/that: but their predictions DON'T come true….. That all contributes to unsaved people sometimes thinking wrong about GOD rather than the false predictors.

What I'm seeing on this blog is (just my opinion) some of the people, probably unintentionally, refering to ALMIGHTY GOD in some frivilous ways.(just my opinion)

I am positive that God tells some people to write a book, AND ALSO THAT many people who make that bold claim are doing it in a way that is not really true, although they may feel it is. If a person doesn't try to honor God above all else, I doubt God spoke to them.

Because I've seen this controversy above, I'm giving a few examples of God speaking to me. I claim it is the real thing, because for over 40 years there has been 100% accuracy; and my motives are always to obey and honor GOD.

I was witnessing to a body-builder type man about Christ, and He was laughing and mocking about our Savior's death on a cross. Suddenly, GOD TOLD ME to warn the man to repent quickly or else GOD would kill him. I begged the man to listen, I told him GOD TOLD ME He will kill you quickly. But the man continued laughing and mocking. HE SAID: he was young, healthy, and had a long life ahead. He snicked as he flexed his muscles at me. HOWEVER, within 20 minutes he dropped dead.

GOD TOLD ME:
A friend of that above-mentioned man met with me shortly after the quick death (I won't tell details) and he mocked the fact that I had actually so warned his friend. HE RAISED HIS EYEBROWS about what God had done. I told him he had raised his eyebrows at GOD…something he should not dare do. He was likewise quickly dead, at age 27.
I could tell piles of similar stories…yes: about God killing people, striking them with lightning out of clear blue sky after warning them, etc.

But the great majority of my experiences are about God guiding me in amazing ways to help people get saved who are desperately seeking salvation. The instant I mention GOD to them , they explode in tears. Their lives are changed forever.
One afternoon, GOD TOLD ME to go to a certain spot on a road about ten miles from my home. As I arrived…a ways ahead of me a car pulled off the road and went up near the woods. A man got out and went into the woods, and disappeared.
I rushed, and went there to chase after him. I got there just in time: He was going to end his life. But because GOD TOLD ME…I was there just in time to lead him to a begining of a new life in Christ.

I happen to know from experience that God does tell some people to even write a book: for God's purposes. So I happen to agree with those who are offended, that if you mention you feel God led you to write a book: that could cause you to be disregarded in a query, etc. Yet it is EASY for me to understand why agents are tired of hearing such claims continually. So I agree it wouldn't help your query…but I don't think it should cause it to be disregarded.

I humbly ask everyone to please do not act frivilously concerning GOD, and things He does (even telling some people to write books) even if WE may think them unusual, etc.

May we all live more peaceably, and strive to SERVE GOD, so that "CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING" is actually CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING. Thank you to all.

>Writer Jim,
I totally agree with everything you said. I think the problem comes when well-meaning Christians assume that just because they felt the Holy Spirit nudging them to write something, that also means that they are guaranteed a publishing contract. God may be encouraging them to write for many reasons, but they still have to go through the same selection process as everyone else.
As writers – and as Christians – the key is to be humble.
A pastor friend of mine told me that she realized, while hearing her eighty-something mother, a concert pianist who can no longer perform on stage, play the church piano in the sanctuary just for the sheer joy of doing so… that when we use our God-given talents we are worshipping him… even if no one else ever hears us play, or reads our books.
As John Donne wrote in his poem, "On Blindness," – "We also serve who only stand and wait."
So if we stand and wait – or in my case, "revise and wait," (eventually to be come "submit and wait") – we are doing our duty until the time when God chooses to use us in a more public way.
And if he doesn't, that's fine too. We will still hear the words, "Well done, my good and faithful servant."

>4 quick thoughts on self-pubbing:
1) It's not for me (until I get 100 rejections I will stand by that). I still think I can get my work pubbed traditionally and get it out to more people that way.
2) Most self-pubbing is for vanity purposes so someone can say to their friend over lunch or a beer, "Search for this on Amazon… yeah, I wrote that."
3)It goes back to Freedom of speech/press vs. Freedom to be heard/read… Just b/c HH has an imprint for self-pubbers doesn't mean that they will put it book shelves. It will go on a website, that won't even be the real Harlequin site.

4) My hopes: Eventually someone will be serious about self-pubbing and will find the right POD company and will start their own "publishing house" and will sell maybe 1500 copies to friends/acquaintances through his Facebook/Myspace/Blog, etc… he will know a dozen other people that also have similar quality books and equal numbers of friends and they will form editing groups and co-ops and then will start publishing better books. They will eventually have a book that goes "viral" and hits it big and gets picked up by bookstores and is a best-seller. A new publishing house is born, but it's a publishing house with author/editors where the author takes 50% of the proceeds and the rest gets distributed amongst the others. The business will change, others will follow, and we will see a stronger, more profitable industry in the end. I know, my thoughts are ridiculous.

>Anon 7:42

Yes, you searched for hours for a good recipe. So have I. But people, generally, will NOT do that for books. A core group of dedicated readers might, but for the public at large, anything that makes reading more difficult will most likely result in less reading. A bunch of poorly or non-edited books will not add to the richness of the literary landscape or enhance the general reader's interest in reading.

Maybe in days gone by this was true, but in this computer/internet day and age, with entities like Harlequin & Thomas Bow making it relatively easy–if expensive–all it does is increase quantity. Having *more* junk around doesn't make it not junk.

And writers and readers should be aware of the implications of a market so saturated with unvetted books. The AVERAGE person won't even bother to sift through them, as they might with recipes. They barely bother reading now; how will stuffing the shelf with 1000's more increase likelihood?

(And, fwiw, when I'm looking for recipes, or searching on eBay/Craig's list places, I rarely go past page 2. I think I am fairly representative in this regard. If your self-pubbed book is on page 15, metaphorically or actually, you're outta luck.)

And, as far as richness of the literary tradition, I'm not talking about self-publishing, when someone works diligently to get their non-fiction, or even fiction, out there, b/c they believe in it. The number of people willing to work so hard to get it done, and then do the legwork of promotion, is few.

It's the stuff that Harlequin and Thomas Nelson have done (with Horizons and West Bow respectively), with no apparent care for any repercussions aside from cash, that is so disheartening. And it ISN'T self-publishing but is being CALLED self-publishing, to lend legitimacy, and that is duplicitous and misleading, and just plain mean.

The argument that some are making, that 99%of these books will fizzle and die, and never even each the eyes of the potential reader, may be true, but it doesn't take away the stain of what Harlequin and Thomas Nelson are doing. And they should be called on it.

(by the way….each time I typed "Thomas Nelson" I accidentally typed 'Thomas Bow." Already the brand dilution/confusion begins, on a purely cognitive level…)

>Christine H:

I understand all you said; and I thank you very much. I like your thinking…we need to truly be humble. May God bless you.

>Despite some of the very real disadvantages of this development, I'm not shedding any tears for the passing of the "Age of the Gatekeeper". All my life, I've been tired of gatekeepers reacting to "what's hot right now", endlessly patting themselves on the back as they effectively fulfill their own prophecies.

I'd accept virtually ANY development that weakens this tendency.

Salesmen, of any stripe, can be good for any business. But when salesmen get too much power over the management decisions of their business, they inevitably start to strangle the business. I think somewhere along the line in publishing, the salesmen took control from the editors.

Yes, self-publishers will produce a lot of garbage. But as pointed out earlier, a lot of garbage is already published. I feel this isn't the fault of editors, but salesmen; salesmen who feel that the garbage will sell, or who feel it's too expensive to take the time to make a good book great. Editors who miss their status as "gatekeepers" have no one to blame but themselves, for ceding their long-term power to salesmen in exchange for short-term profit.

>Author Solutions published 13,000 titles last year. Titles that vary in content and quality. Titles that perhaps didn’t quite fit a publisher’s existing lines. Those books already exist, but are the readers buying them?

And if not, why? (IMHO they aren’t. 2,500,000 copies were sold of 13,000 titles. That first number sounds impressive, right? But divide that down to the average number of copies sold per title = 192. Depressing.)

Those books I spoke of are no different than the products readers will receive through Harlequin Horizons. Because these are Author Solutions products, not Harlequin products. Products designed to lure in writers, not readers. (13,000 packages sold to writers at a BASE price of $599 multiplies out to $7,887,000. Cha-ching )

>Would anyone seriously make the following statement?

"There are too many movies already–if there are tons more movies, I won't be able to figure out what to see! I want Hollywood to continue filtering out the bad stuff so I can continue to enjoy quality films like Transformers 2 and The Love Guru!"

Is someone going to seriously argue that the publishing industry is any less crappy than Hollywood right now?

We need a bit of revolution. Of course there will be garbage produced–there has always been tons of garbage produced. But the arts in this country are adrift and barren, and I'm for absolutely anything that shakes things at the core.

Excellent writing! Thank you for this wonderful source of information.

I simply wished to thank you so much once again. I do not know the things that I could possibly have sorted out in the absence of these recommendations discussed by you on such area. It previously was the intimidating crisis in my opinion, nevertheless being able to view a specialized manner you processed it took me to cry for happiness. Now i’m grateful for your help and in addition wish you realize what an amazing job you have been getting into teaching men and women via your blog. I am sure you haven’t encountered any of us.

I just wanted to compose a simple word to thank you for all the nice steps you are posting on this site. My particularly long internet lookup has finally been recognized with reputable ideas to write about with my family members. I would tell you that many of us website visitors actually are unequivocally blessed to dwell in a really good network with very many awesome professionals with good pointers. I feel very much fortunate to have discovered the web page and look forward to really more exciting times reading here. Thanks a lot once more for all the details.