Phantomimic's Blog

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

12/9/2011

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.

53 Comments

Christine Norris link

12/10/2011 08:59:46 am

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.

IndiePublisher

5/19/2014 11:46:21 am

On the whole an accurate post Christine, but we commercial independents don't get books from a mythical 'slush pile'. No such thing exists. I'm constantly amazed at the quality of the work that is submitted to me, and most have never approached the bigger houses in their lives. Others have been published before, with bigger houses, yet chosen to come to me. My own book attracted the interest of a big international publisher but circumstances conspired at my end which meant I never sent it to them. Soon after, I did it myself and ended up with my own company. That was the only time I ever contacted a publisher about it.
Some authors say they prefer my small house because they get personal attention and greater creative control.

John Abramowitz link

12/10/2011 09:01:51 am

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.

Kell Brigan

1/21/2014 03:05:01 am

So, I'm not an asshat if I barge into the SFMOMA with my paintings and demand they be displayed? Gee. Seems to me that would be a great way to make sure I never get gallery space anywhere. (Or, get carted off to the local loony bin...) We're not talking about "egos." We're talking about absolutely illiterate nobodies presuming to redefine an existing business to suit themselves (and, ultimately screw readers and booksellers.)

IndiePublisher

5/19/2014 11:52:31 am

Oh I've come across them - nothing worse than having to reject an author on the basis of their personality because you know they will be hell to work with! Luckily they're outnumbered by the nice ones. Well up to now, for me, anyway :)

Just Another Writer

12/10/2011 09:02:07 am

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.

worldwidewebster

2/27/2014 11:11:31 am

It always cracks me up when people say "There are books that are published by big name houses that suck too." Just because someone can anecdotally point to a few big-press books that they think are bad, doesn't change the fact that OVERWHELMINGLY the traditionally published books are more competent in every way.

"The only difference between them is their marketing budget." Give me a break. If you truly believe this, you are either not a reader, or you are not literate enough to discern the difference between a competently-executed book and an incompetently-executed book. It's funny that the ONLY people who think self-published books are just as good as traditionally published books are self-published authors who have been insulted by rejection from "the gatekeepers."

IndiePublisher

5/19/2014 11:49:57 am

No this is true - marketing budget, market share and size of house. It takes years to build a reputation and be taken seriously in this industry. Until then it is quite a struggle.

Lia London link

12/10/2011 09:05:40 am

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 09:23:16 am

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

Donna

12/10/2011 09:48:53 am

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 10:15:36 am

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

paclark

12/4/2012 12:12:56 am

Sir Samuel, I think you spoke what is more often than not, the truth. Traditionally published books take a long time to be put out. During that time they're being edited and re-edited. A self-published book often gets far less attention from the author. Thus it has more errors.

Some indies do take more pride in their work and acutally have good stories to tell. I can't count the number of times I've started traditional books and couldn't bear to finish them. Those have stories that loose my interest too.

phantomimic link

12/10/2011 10:58:13 am

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

12/10/2011 11:17:48 pm

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

12/10/2011 11:24:12 pm

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

12/10/2011 11:36:50 pm

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 12:52:38 am

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 01:29:58 am

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 02:17:31 am

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 02:48:54 am

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 02:51:04 am

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 03:55:58 am

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 04:25:22 am

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 04:49:48 am

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 04:58:44 am

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 05:59:21 am

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 06:21:20 am

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 06:53:37 am

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 07:21:21 am

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 08:50:21 am

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 09:48:54 am

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 10:05:39 am

"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 10:09:41 am

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 12:05:22 pm

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

12/11/2011 10:19:02 pm

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 05:35:22 am

Thank you all for an enlightening conversation.

phantomimic link

12/12/2011 07:37:22 am

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! : ^ )

Iran Sanctions link

6/12/2012 10:35:34 pm

I think, being an author is not an easy thing. They have to struggle a lot in their life in search of publishing houses. Many times they faces so much ignorance and rude behavior that it reflects in their attitude after sometime.

Rolando link

6/14/2012 12:21:50 pm

Thanks for your comment. When one is mistreated one sometimes ends up mistreating others. It's sad but its often true.

10/22/2012 12:13:55 am

I'm not sure how relevant this comment will be, but as an aspiring writer, I've submitted manuscripts in the past, even to a publishing company in NYC (I think it was Vantage.). The company seemed to like my work, but even a person who has had minimal experience as a writer is aware of how expensive it can be to get books published. As for the comments about people's opinions about writers, well, they're just that: opinions. I've been tempted countless times to stop writing, but ideas can't be contained forever. I once considered self-publishing, but if I understand correctly, self-published authors don't earn much. Like everyone else, writers have to make a living. I don't know about some writers, but personally, despite how writers are perceived, in part, I write to give myself something to do, to keep busy. Regarding someone's remark about writers having egos, well, I know what it's like to be accused of having an ego...by someone, namely a writing workshop facilitator, who was quick to praise my work, someone who, to my memory, I'd never called egotistical. In my opinion, this guy practically kissed my you-know-what. He gave mixed messages.

Rolando link

10/22/2012 10:31:41 am

Thanks for your comment MK. We all write for ourselves and then seek to share it with others. In our pursuit of this we may go a bit too far, and people may be left with the perception that we have an ego. But if we don't promote our work, no one else will.

With regards to self-publishing, most writers that get published traditionally don't earn that much either. Cut and paste this link into your browser window:
http://phantomimic.weebly.com/2/post/2012/08/you-want-to-be-a-traditionally-published-author-then-self-publish.html

paclark

12/2/2012 12:27:03 pm

I can see where your frustration comes from. I suppose it's true that many self-published authors can be rather pushy. I don't think all of their books "suck" per se, but I can imagine that a good portion of them do.

Having self-published myself, I found the whole experience to be rather taxing. It does take a lot of time and energy out of you. And like you've stated, most people aren't bothered about reading your books.

I've been more particular about having services edit my work for me. I also have them help me with the book covers. Just because you self-publish doesn't mean you can skimp on the presentation.

In the end, I think it boils down to this. Writing is a form of creative expression. I can undestand why many authors do it and why I do it myself. However, I don't push my books on people. I just write them and make them available online. The pushy indies probably get more attention than I do and that's OK. I don't want to annoy people with anything I've written. Leaving it out there for people to decide if they want to read it or not is good enough for me. I started off trying to make audio stories for download and kind of crossed over into book publising world too as a result.

There does seem to be a slight difference when you write something to be read silently and when you write it to be read out loud.

I'm trying to focus on books to be read in print format now. We'll see where that goes.

Rolando link

12/3/2012 02:10:45 am

Thanks for your comment, but please allow me to clarify that in this post I was quoting someone. Being a self-published author myself I don't think we are "rude, pushy, completely self-absorbed, and our books suck." Please also read my reply to this post. Good luck with your books!

Cori

3/25/2014 11:50:08 am

90% of published authors are just like that. I mean, you are mentioning Stephenie Meyer here and I'm positive we can't really call that person an author. Guess I'd still go with the 16th century vampire with a skin condition.

IndiePublisher

5/19/2014 11:38:40 am

I'm an Indie publisher and I started out with my own book before branching out with other people's work. I've been doing this for a few years now and it's going well, with all titles selling consistently, but I will say that publishing is a very difficult industry to break into if you are a small newcomer. Not only is it still a bit old fashioned, the likes of POD is still viewed in some circles like leprosy and the bigger established houses tend to get the best platforms. Marketing budget, company size and market share has more to do with it than you might imagine, and it can be difficult to get a signing if you have an 'old school' events co-ordinator who believes only celebs should grace their hallowed doors.
So please don't beat yourselves up - attitudes like that from 'Michelle' are common, and of course, on the whole, misguided. Some authors do have egos, yes; you wouldn't believe some of the 'personalities' I've encountered during the submission process, but most are alright. I can spot the egos a mile off, and simply don't work with them!
I will say though, on the subject of grammar - please do make the effort here. If you're going to put something out there, have respect for yourself and your work, and the quality of literature as a whole. You'll be taken more seriously too.
Best of luck to you all with your writing endeavours!

Indie Author

6/10/2015 03:11:50 am

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents here, since I'm an indie (read: self-published) author. Listen, I submitted my first novel to a bunch of agents (around 50); I got some positive feedback and some full requests, but, at the end of the day, I also got a bunch of no thank yous. I was told by several of those agents that the market I was writing in was overcrowded and thus a though sell to trad publishers--and let's face it, an agent won't take on what they think they can't sell.

So for me, you're right, it was either take a risk and self-publish or let my book metaphorically collect dust on my hard drive. I took a risk, hired an editor and a professional cover artist (I paid nearly a $1,000), and you know what? It was totally worth it. Since launching my book in January 2015, I've made over $13,000 and sold somewhere around 5,000 copies and counting daily (today alone I sold or lent, via Amazon Select, around 60 copies). People are reading my book--people are emailing me and asking me to write more. Just this last month I released book 2, which has (in two weeks) already earned out, making me over $2,000. I've also officially become a member of SFWA! And, IMO, if SFWA says I'm a real, bonafide author--even if I'm also an indie--then who is anyone else to argue?

And its all because I took a chance. Is my story going to be normative for all indie authors? Certainly not. But it is possible. And if I'd listened to naysayers who proclaim that if you can't trad publish you just can't hack it, or the agents who told me the market was "overcrowded," I'd be much worse off. Some--heck, many--indie books are terrible, I'll admit, but many indies are also acting like professionals: writing solid books, having beta readers read them prior to publication, and contracting out for editors and cover artists. Indie publishing isn't what it used to be and it isn't going

Phantomimic link

8/21/2015 12:30:22 pm

Sorry for the late comment approval. I am not that active at this site anymore, but I hope that changes in the future. It is great that you are doing so well. The vast majority of authors don't even sell enough to recover what they invested in the book. Hope you keep doing fine!

Everett link

7/23/2015 04:00:05 am

As cold as it sounds, this is how I've always viewed traditional publishing vs. self publishing.

Let's say you are in high school and you want to go to college. You apply to a college but are not accepted. You apply to several more and because of your work in high school, you are accepted. You move into the dorm and go to class. You do your work and you pass that class. Then you take another class. And another one, and you do the work needed to pass each.

When you have completed all the required classes, you write a final paper. Then you are given a degree from that school. You graduate and hang the diploma on your wall.

Self publishing is when you don't apply to the college but pick the one you want. You write the final paper and grade this paper yourself --- awarding it an A+ --- and then print yourself a degree.

And you hang that printed degree on a wall.

phantomimic link

8/21/2015 12:33:47 pm

If the process was fair, I would agree with you. But when you see scores of people that deserve A+ get straight Fs, then you realize that traditional publishing is a joke.

Everett

8/21/2015 08:56:40 pm

Fair? What does that mean?

Is professional sports, fair? Or business, or academics? If every kid who wanted to play professional baseball, could --- despite how they did at try outs --- the sport would be chaos.

Being published is not something you are entitled to --- all ideas aren't good ideas and all stories aren't important. There is nothing fair about it --- or anything else in life. It's not supposed to be.

Anna H. link

11/6/2018 09:22:00 pm

Thank you so much for publishing this blog! For years, I thought it would be a great idea to self-publish my collection of short stories.

A few weeks ago, I read an article about how self-published authors will NEVER see their books shelved in brick and mortar stores. That sucks! As a writer, I always wanted my books to be published in brick and mortar stores.

Self-publishing sounds nice in theory, but when you really think about all the time and money going into publishing your own work, that will never be seen in stores, that's a total waste of time.

Also, within the last few hours to months, I have noticed just how incredibly smug these self-published authors are as people. In fact, a nice portion of those same authors I have met are YA Fantasy Romance authors.

BTW: I find "Young Adult" to be a contrived and pretentious label for saying they self-published Teen Romance and Fantasy novels. Therefore, I fail to see what's so great about their books. That's not including the fact, that some of them are smug incels with a severe case of Peter Pan Syndrome acting self-righteous and condescending because they write the same, shitty, recycled stories.

With all that being said, I want my work to be traditionally published. I want there to be no errors and someone, who can promote my work the best they can, as well as seeing it be shelved in brick and mortar stores.

Elsa Marestante

3/17/2019 09:58:52 pm

It’s sad how the piles of poorly written, poorly edited garbage so many self pub “authors” are slapping together muddy the waters for the few who write compelling works and select indie publishing strategically. If only vanity presses would cease to exist. If only the evil empire (Amazon) would enforce quality control... You designed your cover in Microsoft paint? Denied. Your editor was your neighbor who counts beans for a living? Denied. Your book is a memoir about your ordinary life? Denied.

Here’s the thing... from a financial perspective, indie publishing is more favorable than traditional. But it’s hard (really hard) to strip away the downsides, particularly the stigma. And I get it. More self pub than not is garbage. Sorry, but it’s empirically true. Even close friends, whose work I feel compelled to support, is, well, blather. And yet they are convinced it will be the next self pub success story, that bookstores would be mad to turn them down. I weep for them.

And I weep for the talented indie writers whose works will never be appreciated because they get lost in the sludge.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

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

Leave a Reply.

Blogroll

Categories

Archives