Indie authors are rude, pushy, completely self-absorbed, and their books suck.

12/09/2011

I recently read this on the comment thread of an article about reasons not to self-publish and I thought I would share it with you here. It was by a person called "Michelle".

***
I work as an event coordinator/marketer for an independent bookstore that has been inundated in recent years with self-published authors looking for shelf space and store events for their books. We get – and I am not exaggerating – between 400 and 500 requests a year from self-published authors asking us to stock and promote their book. On a slow week, we get 5-10 requests; on a busy week we’ll get 20.

If you ask most indie bookstore event coordinators about self-published authors, you will probably see some combination of eye-rolling, teeth grinding, or derisive laughter. Self-published authors are the bane of our existence. There are so, SO many would-be self-published authors that would do well to read this piece, and read it thoroughly. And then second-guess their decision to self-publish. But I know they won’t.

Why do I loathe (most) self-published authors? Here’s why. And I’m saying all this so maybe – MAYBE – there’s a self-published author out there who will read this and then understand what they are up against when it comes to marketing their self-published book through their friendly neighborhood indie bookstore.

1. Their books suck. There is no other way to say this. Bad writing, bad grammar, bad spelling, bad plot/character development, bad subject matter, etc. Don’t even get me started on do-it-yourself cover art. The book is bad. It’s bad. That’s why it couldn’t get published by a traditional publisher. But you can’t tell the self-published author of this monstrosity that their book is substandard and unsellable. Because they would act like you’ve just told them their brand-new firstborn child is ugly. Hey, I get it. You put a lot of work into this thing, and you ended up with an ugly baby. But that doesn’t change the baby’s looks, or the book’s ability to sell.

2. 90% of self-published authors are rude, pushy, completely self-absorbed, and relentless. This is my BOOK! It’s my MASTERPIECE. How dare you say it is not worthy of being stocked in your store, unless I pay for consignment?? How dare you, to not jump up and down and beg me to do an event for this book – even though I am not really from around here, I have no friends, and the book has only a very narrow niche appeal since it’s about my past life experience as a 16th century vampire with a skin condition?? Some of them don’t even bother to pitch the book themselves, but hire some poor hapless “freelance literary agent” to do it for them. Then relentlessly prod the “agent” to get them an event. THE BOOK SUCKS. IT’S NOT HAPPENING.

3. Self-published authors show a really appalling level of self-non-awareness. EVERY self-published author thinks they are the next Stephenie Meyer/James Patterson/That Guy on Amazon Who Sold a Million E-Books. EVERY self-published author thinks their memoir about going on a hiking trip to Alaska where nothing particularly dramatic happened is “special” and that “people will love it!” EVERY self-published author thinks they have written the new breakout bestseller, YA sensation, Great American Novel. I hear the same words from the same types of people over and over and over, about how their books are “different.” The books are never different. 50% of them have badly Photoshopped covers and are printed in Comic Sans.

You wrote a book. Congratulations. Let me make this clear. WRITING THE BOOK AND PAYING SOMEONE TO PRINT IT FOR YOU DOES NOT MAKE YOU SPECIAL. If the book is actually good – and in the several thousand requests I’ve processed, I’ve seen three or four that actually were – THAT makes you special. But please, PLEASE stop acting like paying AuthorHouse or Smashwords or any other vanity publisher a few thousand dollars entitles you to anything. It doesn’t. Not the adoration of untold legions of fans. Not the respect and admiration of your local indie bookseller. Not sales from your friends (who 80% of the time, from what I can see, end up with free copies rather than purchased ones). Not attention from local or national media. Self-publishing means that instead of the book manuscript being stuck in a drawer, there’s a 99% chance you’ll end up with boxes of unsold books in your garage. Fewer than 1% of self-published authors sell more than 150 copies of their book.

Please think about all this, self-publishing authors, before you give your credit card number to Smashwords.
***
What do you think? Read my reply to this here.

Comments

Christine Norris link

12/10/2011 7:59pm

I'd have to say I agree with much of what Michelle has to say. It's her personal experience with self-published authors. Which, by the way are DIFFERENT than 'indie' authors. A true Indie author has books published by an independent publisher/small press, who selected their book from a slush pile, edited it, had a cover artist design a cover, paid to have it printed, and then maintains a website and does all the work of marketing (as much as that entails depending on the budget of said publisher).

A really GOOD self-published author, however (and I also differentiate that from a VANITY published author, who just paid a printer to print their work as-is and slap a cover on it), will realize that THEY are responsible for all of the jobs a publisher, big or small, does. That means they find a GOOD editor and pay them, find a GOOD cover artist and pay them, and pay for all the marketing and promotion themselves. They wear all the hats.

Far too many self-published authors are not very good at their business,which is where I think Michelle's problem lies.

Just my two bits.

John Abramowitz link

12/10/2011 8:01pm

As far as books sucking goes, I can only speak for myself and not for other indies. But I'll point you to this post: http://onthebird.blogspot.com/2011/11/whats-with-all-self-pub-hate.html and leave it at that.

As far as self-absorbed non-self-awareness, I understand that can be annoying (and try not to suffer from it), but I think that's probably fairly common in the arts. Every artist of any kind (actors, authors, singers, etc.) are basically shouting to be heard in a marketplace that gets more crowded by the day. We have to think our work is the best thing since sliced bread, because that's the only thing that keeps us getting up in the morning.

So, I understand how grating that can be, but I think it's part of the business. If you work with artists, you get egos.

Just Another Writer

12/10/2011 8:02pm

I think you've gotten some bad eggs or have little to no patience. There are books that are published by big name houses that suck too.

Have you ever read Twilight? That book has sold millions, and yet it's one of the worst written/edited novels to be released in the last 10 years.

Also, I'm not certain where you're getting your facts about SmashWords, but it costs nothing to put your ebook on there.

Most self-published writers use services like Lulu or CreateSpace which are Print on Demand. It costs them nothing to list on there, they're able to get to multiple retailers, and books on Amazon are eligible for Amazon Prime.

Most of your article is written out of frustration and not fact. You are, invariably, full of shit to put it bluntly.

Are there a lot of bad authors that are self-published? Yes. Are there bad authors that are traditionally published? Yes.

The only difference between them is their marketing budget.

You're welcome to post your opinions, as everyone has one, but at least get your facts straight before you start shitting all over writers.

Lia London link

12/10/2011 8:05pm

I think you're probably right. And I'm self-published. Heck, I think the same of a good many traditionally published folks.

At the same time, I've been painted with broad brushes before--characterized before I was met--and condemned because of the attributes and failings of others.

So go ahead an roll your eyes when you see one of us coming. If we're rude, tell us so. But do give the book a glance. It may not suck. It may be that the queries to publishers did. Or that the contracts offered did. They may have felt that self-publishing was the best way to start and they just need a venue to send their friends shopping.

I'm not going to be famous or rich from my book. No self-absorbed expectations there. But I'd love it if a local book store would at least TALK to me, interview me, if they wish--rake me over the coals--before judging me useless.

B Y Rogers link

12/10/2011 8:23pm

I think Christine said it all. Thank you. I have nothing to add.

Donna

12/10/2011 8:48pm

So you are a clerk in a bookshop. Please get you facts before you make a fool out of yourself. You must be young and dumb.

Sir Samuel Zeus Clemons link

12/10/2011 9:15pm

well, the poor editing, bad grammar thing has no excuse, since any basic word processor has spell check, and anybody anywhere can have even a lay person read the manuscript for basic errors. as an editor myself, i purposely have many different writing styles, and you would never guess who i am anyway, since i am not about to tell you. i write drivel on my blog, and tell simple stories, often in the manic, self absorbed style of a narcissistic ferret, but i also write for major publications, edit all kinds of work, and frankly, there is no excuse for not editing.

so let's chalk that up to "being in a rush" ... the old testament parable about the messenger being in such a hurry to tell the King he lost the war, when in fact he was wrong? well he paid for the bad information with his life. so be it. if self publ authors are in such a hurry, and nobody buys their stuff, maybe they learn from that? and take more time. i for one do not have anyone edit my blog, since it is for purely entertainment purposes, but have people proofread all my professional stuff.

as to being pushy, self absorbed, and relentless? what would we expect? so was Thomas Edison. we don't succeed by giving up at the first sign of adversity. if an author takes the time to write a completely useless, unreadable pc of crap? well, they have invested their lives in that pc of crap, and we would expect them to be pushy.

so let it go, "Michelle" whomever you are. move on to something else, and don't let the self publ crowd bother you if you are reading this thread. they are only doing what it takes to get their books sold, and that goes with the territory. happiness is a decision you make Michelle, and so is misery, or annoyance. nothing can bother you if you don't let it.

i tweet at @Samuel_Clemons

the tea kettle whistleth

phantomimic link

12/10/2011 9:58pm

Hey folks, first of all "Just another writer" and "Donna", this was not my opinion, this was a post by somebody else, which I posted here.

Christine, thanks for that distinction between "indie" and "self-published".

John Abramowitz, good point, if you don't think that what you created is good, then why bother? Who is going to promote your work but you? Egos sometimes allow you to stay afloat when others sink.

Lia London, yes, that is all we are asking for. And I might add that sometimes the story shines through sub-optimal covers, grammar or formatting. Focus on the story!

Sir Samuel, she did talk about "most" self-published authors, so there are "some" she likes, but clearly she had had a bad experience that had scarred her.

Amelia James link

12/11/2011 10:17am

Since I self-published my books in March 2011, I have sold 242 copies. My free short story has been downloaded 2185 times since the end of October 2011, and the anthology I'm in has been downloaded over 3300 times since November 2011.

Maybe that doesn't impress Michelle, but I feel like I've accomplished something, especially since I'm a self-published (not indie) unknown author. And I've done this without being pushy or rude. Overall, my reviews have been positive. I know my books aren't masterpieces. I still have a lot to learn, and I feel my best writing is yet to come.

Maybe next year I'll find a real publisher, and I can shed the self-published scum label. <insert sarcasm here>

phantomimic link

12/11/2011 10:24am

Thank you for that great comment Amelia. I think she had a few bad experiences and then generalized to the whole lot of us. Congratulations on your sales!

K J Bennett link

12/11/2011 10:36am

Many people will say, “if it’s good, it’ll get published,” but that, my friends, is not often true. Many, many authors struggle for years to get publishers to look at their work. In the UK, most publishers will not accept unsolicited submissions – you have to know someone, or meet an editor at a literary event and be invited to submit, or you have to have an agent.

I once wrote to a publisher to introduce myself and to ask if they would like to invite me to send them my work: the response I got was, “We do not accept unsolicited submissions.” I pointed out that I hadn’t submitted anything to them: I was asking if they would like to invite me to. Their response was, ” “We do not accept unsolicited submissions.” Ho hum.

Most UK agents are simply not interested in reading 150 submissions per week. AND many are in no way qualified to act as an agent: there is no training academy for agents. Many employ students and others to read the slush pile, or they just return submissions unread (even top agents do this – I have personal experience and an admission).
There will be crap indie books, and there will be crap traditionally punished books – I read loads of them (Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer and other top selling authors have been accused by many critics as being in this category).
If you want to read some background try this series short series of posts – http://kj-bennett.blogspot.com/2011/12/thats-not-real-publishing-part-1.html

Richard Bunning link

12/11/2011 11:52am

Michelle has a well biased view. What a nice girl. I sort of wonder why she has wasted so much of her life reading all the indie rubbish she so obviously has. I have never seen a self-effacing apologetic launch from any legacy publisher, and I don't expect to. If any author is honest about their shortcomings it is as often as not an indie one. What does she suggest we say? "I have a book to promote, but this Michelle character thinks it's shit. She reads all indies, so she should know. She is very wise, and she says we are all **** **** ****."

David Barber. link

12/11/2011 12:29pm

The way the publishing industry is going, self-publishing is the only option that some writers have. I loved this sentence in her post.....

"Bad writing, bad grammar, bad spelling, bad plot/character development, bad subject matter, etc."

Hmmm, because there has never been a shit "traditionally" published novel has there, Michelle?

Maybe Michelle should look into bad grammar/writing before she hits the "publish" option on her own writing. That post has so many errors in it.

Wake up woman! Self-published writers don't need this kind of shit thrown at them. Prick!!

Amos Keppler link

12/11/2011 1:17pm

This Michelle is obviously biased. The sad truth is that ninety percent of the books in her store, filled with books from established publishers would fit her description of self published books.

What she fails to see is basically this:

There have always been bad books and will always be bad books, both published through established publishers and not. But in this new, great age we will no longer suffer or suffer less from the censorship of publishers. There will be less impediments between authors/artists and readers/audience. There are both pros and cons of self publishing, but the positive wins over the negative almost every time. A self published books is, generally speaking far superior to one released by publishers, all publishers, also those claiming to be independent. A self published artist is a truly independent artist.
Everybody should be, of course.

agreed

12/11/2011 1:48pm

I tend to agree with whats written. If something is good enough to get published then generally it will be.

What gets to me is the reams of awful 'e-publishers' that give someone a (crap) cover, don't edit it at all and then earn their commission by advertising it on FB/twitter. I feel these guys are building their writers up for a fall as when all the writers mates have reviewed it 5* everywhere, a real paying customer will write an honest review and bring them crashing down to real life again.

I think the ratio of shit self published/e-published books and shit traditionally published ones comes into play here, David.

Observer

12/11/2011 1:51pm

Michelle is spot-on. Most self-published stuff is pure crap. Do legacy publishers sometimes publish a bad book? Sure, but mostly they publish quality work. Which is why those self-publishing do so. Their work isn't quality. I'd add another reason so many people think they "deserve" to be (self)published. It stems from the generations who've been given blue ribbons for sitting on the bench and told all their lives they're "special" even if they're the fat kid who can't run. It must be true--their parents and teachers told them so, over and over. So, if a gatekeeper tells them their work sucks, what do they know? Their mommies and daddies and teachers and coaches told them they were "special." One person said she sold a couple hundred of her "book." Well, considering a legacy publishers invests a minimum of %50,000 into a single title, it doesn't make much sense that they'd be interested in her "work" does it?

I imagine most of the comments will come from the undiscovered "geniuses" who aren't appreciated by real publishers.

phantomimic link

12/11/2011 2:55pm

Hey people please let's watch the language here. Try to keep your replies clean, OK?

K J Bennett - Yes, this is a truth has has been ignored for too long. Good books are not always published.

Richard Bunning - It's the old gatekeeper mentality.

Amos Keppler - Some people think that just because a book is well written with spotless grammar, it is good. But it is the story that's important!

agreed - Well, we agree that it is the paying readers that will decide.

Observer - It's a market, if you buy crap you are not checking the product well before buying. All the self-published books I've read are excellent. Considering that less than 1% of self-published authors sell 150 copies of their books, that person who sold a couple hundred copies of her book is a success.

Observer

12/11/2011 3:25pm

Phantomimic--I'm not buying crap because I won't buy vanity press offerings. If less than 1% of vanity press typists sell 150 copies and another sells a couple of hundred, then I submit that neither are "successful" by any stretch of the imagination. If you buy self-published books and deem them excellent, I'd seriously question your literary acumen.

But, it's clear this forum attracts mostly vanity writers so this goes nowhere. I imagine they're all "special" people...

Shyam link

12/11/2011 3:49pm

I am yet to publish except on Scribd. With over 100,000 reads in about a year from 100 odd(poems) I guess I am now primed to publish. I admit I don't know much about publishing- self or traditionally published. Yet I have read a lot, both self published & the traditionally published ones, there are gems among both kinds and lots of trash in both as well. Just because, a work is published by a traditional publisher or has prefect grammar doesn't make it a work of art, I would rather read a grammar book then.
A work of art/literature must be creative and must appeal to the reader who identifies with it or gets absorbed in it.
It is stupid to presume all self published authors as trash just because you came across some bad ones, it is even sillier to assume that all books churned out by reputed publishers are worthy.

phantomimic link

12/11/2011 3:58pm

Observer, if you define self-published (which is not vanity press) work as crap, then there is no way I can argue with you. For you then the books of Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Barry Eisler, and Joe Konrath are crap. There is not way most writers (including the vast majority of traditionally published authors) will meet this standard.

There are several gradations of success. Reality is what it is. You just keep working at it and making it better. Isn't that what we all do?

Writers, because of what they do, are special. And self-published writers so much so because of what they are willing to do (we are pioneers in a new frontier). But we are not better, if that is what offends you, I agree.

Observer

12/11/2011 4:59pm

There's a reason Konrath began self-publishing. Have you read any of his books? They're really... what's the word... oh, yeah... bad. Hack stuff. And, self-published is vanity publishing, no matter what a person wants to call it.

I don't personally care what anyone does--what I do object to is a vanity press writer claiming to be an author when they're not. They're people with a checkbook who are mostly self-deluded as to the worth of their work.

K J Bennett link

12/11/2011 5:21pm

Dear Observer,

You are entitled to your opinion, but I wonder is your judge other areas of your life in the same way. You have a downer on self-publishing: fine. How many self-published works have you actually read? One, two? None?

Are you making a judgement based on one or two bad experiences, or on many? Maybe most of us should never buy a 'traditionally published' book again, because we've all read bad 'real' books. But what some think of as bad (Twilight?) many think of as brilliant.

I've read some rubbish indie books, but that doesn't mean they are all bad.

Veronica Marie Lewis-Shaw link

12/11/2011 5:53pm

Wow! This 'Michelle' has a serious weed up her.... well, you get the idea.

Is it mean of me to feel just a bit of smug self-satisfaction when I see someone like 'Michelle' make broad, simplistic generalizations, and then get her face smeared in her own words? Yeah... that probably is pretty immature of me. The thing is... it is hard to giver her concerns - if that is what they are, and not just harpist bitching - any credence. I think most would agree with me - I'm certainly not the first one to point it out - there is shyte out there from 'traditional' and 'self-published' writers.... Anyone read Twilight? I won't go into that book's insufficiencies here. I’m just saying... don’t dismiss all self-published writers simply because you read a story or two that wasn’t up to your literary standards, or you had a bad experience with the writer. Guess what? WRITERS HAVE EGOS!!! And we like to flex them… deal with it!!! Remember this… cream doesn’t always rise to the top, and sometimes… shyte floats; it doesn’t sink to the bottom where it belongs. In the end, the reading public decides our fates, not us.

phantomimic link

12/11/2011 6:21pm

Shyam - Yes, those generalizations do an injustice to many.

Observer - Joe Konrath makes half a million a year. If my books ever reach a tenth of that I will gladly let people scream in my face that I suck, and I will tell them that I whole-heartily agree with them when they say I am a "vanity publisher."

KJ Bennett and Veronica - Twilight is a good example. Some say it's bad writing. Err...really? For who? Millions love it. The opinion of these millions does not count because they belong to "the great unwashed?" In this new frontier, readers rule, that is the gold standard.

Veronica - That cream and crap bit was quite a metaphor, I love it!

Laura Novak

12/11/2011 7:50pm

Ouch, a rather harsh generalization about writers who are independent. Yes, we all believe in our work. And believe me, I've seen plenty from both individuals and publishing houses that are bad...and are good. The last part about the credit card confuses me. But it sounds like a rant in general. Glad you posted it here for our reference!

Joe

12/11/2011 8:48pm

Wow, the comments are a far more interesting read than the abusive article. (No critisizm to you Phanto because posting the article has unearthed a gold mine of interesting opinions and biases." Many fair and unfair insights have been shared, (nice moderating too by the way for Phanto)
The anger flowing from some of the comments are puzzling however. The writers who feel attacked or are supporting their own I understand. Maybe because I'm working at earning the writer title. It's the others who seem to be merely very unhappy readers. Relax and don't read what you don't like. Writers who aren't read are already feeling punished without a b***h slapping from you.
The generalizing is the most offensive component from Michelle and within many of the comments but the offensive language and attacks are very disurbing as well.
Repeat the mantra, "I won't read what I don't like" Works for me.

Veronica Marie Lewis-Shaw link

12/11/2011 9:05pm

"Fewer than 1% of self-published authors sell more than 150 copies of their book."

You mean... in your store, right? Because, globally... I very much doubt that. Of course, I" am sure you have hard data to back up such a statement?

Veronica Marie Lewis-Shaw link

12/11/2011 9:09pm

Thank you, phantomimic! I am not usually good with metaphors... that one was emotion-driven.

I am one of the millions reading Twilght... I want to understand its success, because no one can deny, it is a success!

phantomimic link

12/11/2011 11:05pm

Laura - Yes, she seems to be venting. Probably had a few frustrating experiences and is generalizing to us all.

Joe - Thanks Joe, it feels to me like the royalty being outraged at the revolt by the serfs. They fume and ask, "Who do we think we are?" We are self-published writers, and we are here to stay!

Veronica - Thanks and that figure is close to reality. See my post:

http://phantomimic.weebly.com/2/post/2011/11/amazons-ranking-and-the-power-curve.html

But, like I said in my reply post, the immediate problem is not quality, it is marketing. Books do not sell, not because they are bad, but because they are not reaching readers.

Toastmaster General

12/12/2011 9:19am

I think that there needs to be a bridge between the acquisition methods between traditional "gatekeeper" publishing and self-publishing. The web and cheap software has caused a boom in self-publishing, and the reasons )and products) people self-publish are not all crap.

On the side of publishers (traditional), they are subject to the economy, and with the limited title room, plus thousands of submissions, they have to go with what's salable; that is, what they know will sell, because it's sold before. New voices, styles, books that cross genres; they're a gamble.

On the self-publisher's side, something I heard from someone in the music industry. By the time a major label picks you up, you've already done 90% of the marketing work yourself. They just get you to reach a larger audience. Like most bands, self-published writers have all different reasons for getting in. Some just want a book with their name on it - good for them. But others want to do "90% of the marketing work" to prove their book can sell - yet there's no label scouting for them based off of that. Instead, they're not taken seriously.

One thing that's overlooked is the fact that many self-published authors contribute to short story eZines. If literary agents and publishers had people scouring these sites, they could find well-written work and new voices. They don't have to rely on what sells, but what gets the strongest reactions, and in the short works, they can find what they like.

Web based writing solution (self-publishing, web-based indie pubs, internet distribution) and traditional publishing have to find a synergy, or else one will overtake the other.

filigreegirl

12/12/2011 4:35pm

Thank you all for an enlightening conversation.

phantomimic link

12/12/2011 6:37pm

Toastmaster - Thanks for your comment. I think that publishers should reach out to successful self-published authors and offer them deals that respect their right to publish, write, and price their works as they see fit. This means not pricing an e-book the same as a print book. That is how traditional publishers will survive.

filigreegirl - Thanks you! : ^ )