Controversy - Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word

[David Newrick]

Social media has gone slightly berserk with indignation, tears and apparently even death threats. Why?

Someone has dared to question the validity and worth of self-publishing. Not really a good move for your health it would seem, giving the current vitriolic backlash in the digital world over an article in The Huffington Post.

Here is a link to that article in The Huffington Post -

Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word | The Huffington Post

As I am attached to my life and intend to keep a hold of it for quite a lot of years yet I thought I would stay out of the controversy but hold a poll instead. I have many thoughts on this subject but I will happily let you all debate it instead.

Here is the poll -

 

[Robinne Weiss]

Light the match and step back, eh? Wise. But I'm willing to step into the flames. I think there are excellent self-published books and excellent traditionally published books. I also think that there are self-published books that are complete crap, and traditionally published books that are complete crap. And I know books that I love, others will hate, and books that I hate, others will love. That's life. That's art. Someone wants to waste their time railing against self-publishing? I'd rather spend my time reading a book instead.

 

[Marc Joan]

Fence sitting, tut tut. But I don't blame you.
I voted 'have never read any' above, but now I come to think of it I have read a couple. They would have benefited from a bit of third party editing. But then so could many 'traditionally' published books.

 

[Carol Rose]

I'd hardly call her an expert on the subject. Reads more like sour grapes/hoity-toily entitled snob to me. And I think we can all name plenty of "traditionally" published books that never should have made it to the shelves in their current state.

 

[Marc Joan]

Some thoughts here: Smashwords: 2017 Book Industry Predictions: Intrigue and Angst amid Boundless Opportunity

 

[Island Writer]

Caveat: of course there are exceptions to every rule.

In my humble opinion, the problem with self-publishing is the lack of gatekeepers. The gatekeepers (agents, editors, publishers etc) were there for a reason. When the gates were flung wide open it was inevitable that issues would arise with quality control (much as they did in the music business). I am a firm believer in quality over quantity - churning out poor quality work that hasn't been through any kind of professional service (copy-editing or proofreading), just to get a series of books 'out there' to build a 'platform' means the writer is often making the same mistakes over and over again.

I have read a number of self-published books by indie authors and have been disappointed by the poor standard of writing, editing, grammar and proofreading. I no longer read self-published books unless by a previously traditionally published author. Quite frankly I don't see the point of putting myself through the angst of eye rolling at the errors - yes, I know the argument that reading poorly written books has value - you know what NOT to do, but I value my time.

The book buying public should be made aware of HOW the book came to market. For example, when searching for a book on Amazon, most people don't know whether it has been traditionally published or not - most don't know to Google the publisher. There should be some kind of label on self-published books to alert a potential reader - it will ensure buyers know what they are getting. Perhaps books should pass more than a formatting test when they are published on Amazon - some kind of editorial/proofreading qualifier?

I have self-published a collection of short stories - I didn't want to do it, I kicked against it for a long time, but eventually gave in to pressure from friends and family who wanted to read my work in one place. Most of the stories included in the collection were previously published - so I knew the standard was high enough, the stories had passed a gatekeeper's judgmental eye. I wouldn't self-publish a novel unless it had gone through a copy-edit and proofread by a professional as I believe in giving my work the best possible chance.

ETA: Just as I started writing with a view to publication I was given a key piece of advice: if you believe in yourself, invest in yourself.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

It makes all manner of sense to take matters into your own hands, if you can afford to absorb a possible loss. Walt Whitman did it. What worries me about it, is, who's going to tell you your baby's ugly, or that it's just not ready yet? Editing might not be perfect with trad published books, but I've noticed that issue far more when reading self-published novels.

Amazon says HERE that 'book discovery' is the greatest challenge to the self published author.

 

[Chase Gamwell]

Amazon says HERE that 'book discovery' is the greatest challenge to the self published author.

I started having issues with this article when the criteria for making money is defined as "selling more than one million e-book copies in the last five years". That seems incorrect, though I can't say that I've run any numbers. Surely, plenty of authors who haven't sold one million e-book copies have made some sort of money? My brother, for instance, published two e-books on amazon under a pseudonym and wound up making some money. It wasn't a King's Ransom, but he did make money...

Besides that, I think that self publishing has the potential for varying degrees of success. I guess it depends on what you hope to get out of it? (though, I'll be the first to admit that I'm the last person who has any authority to weigh in on self publishing...)

 

[David Newrick]

Just for your information guys - the poll is completely anonymous. You can also see the results of the poll by clicking on the 'view results' button. So far not one person has voted for 'An excellent form of literature with consistently high quality writing'.

Interesting isn't it.

 

[Geoff]

The main problem I have with self-publishing is you really don't know what to expect. I suppose that could be said about all books, but traditional publishing does at least have the 'gatekeepers' that Island Writer has mentioned above, so you would at least to expect there was some value / quality to the work. With the amount of self-published work currently being pushed in to the market, I should imagine there must be a large number of well written self-published books being swallowed up in the sea of much poorer work. I haven't self-published so I am happy to be corrected.

 

[Arlene Adamo]

From the structure, writing style, tone and nature of that article, I would definitely not bother with Laurie Gough's books. The nice thing about the internet is that you can usually find samples of any author's work, (industry published and self-published), to determine if their writing is something you'd be interested in. The idea that the publishing industry is some sort of god-like authority and anyone with a publishing deal is among the chosen greats is ludicrous. You need only look at poorly written books like Fifty Shades of Grey to know this isn't true. (That one was very successfully guerilla marketed.)

This is an article that takes a very close look at the publishing industry in America, (it is likely very similar in most Western countries.) I think it provides a lot of clarity about how the system works because every industry operates within a system.

http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=honorstheses

 

[Marc Joan]

From the structure, writing style, tone and nature of that article, I would definitely not bother with Laurie Gough's books. The nice thing about the internet is that you can usually find samples of any author's work, (industry published and self-published), to determine if their writing is something you'd be interested in. The idea that the publishing industry is some sort of god-like authority and anyone with a publishing deal is among the chosen greats is ludicrous. You need only look at poorly written books like Fifty Shades of Grey to know this isn't true. (That one was very successfully guerilla marketed.)

This is an article that takes a very close look at the publishing industry in America, (it is likely very similar in most Western countries.) I think it provides a lot of clarity about how the system works because every industry operates within a system.

http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=honorstheses

This looks extremely interesting & I look forward to reading -- thank you.

 

[Marc Joan]

F

This is an article that takes a very close look at the publishing industry in America, (it is likely very similar in most Western countries.) I think it provides a lot of clarity about how the system works because every industry operates within a system.

http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=honorstheses

I read the conclusion while having a sandwich. Quote:
"Books are one of many mediums that shape culture and identity, and they can be a powerful tool towards the improvement of intellectual life, if they are not taken for granted. Television was once a great opportunity to create a new and exciting educational and cultural space. Sadly, the television shows that most people watch and that are most heavily advertised and promoted are the least culturally or educationally valuable. The book industry is headed down the same road. Publishers need to realize that they have no only an opportunity, but a responsibility."
Yup. There are some independent [small] publishing houses that seem to be aware of this responsibility, but they too operate under commercial pressures. They need our support.

 

[David Newrick]

Ah yes, that 'proud publishing history'. Of course we shouldn't try to forget the penny bloods of the 19th century, or penny dreadfuls as they became known. An indicator of what happens when you follow the path of total commercialism?

Here is a link to an interesting article explaining all at The British Library. The article is well written, but one thing I would question deeply in this article is its claim that, "In the 1830s, increasing literacy and improving technology saw a boom in cheap fiction for the working classes." This seems to me to be a wild assumption that it was the working classes who were the exclusive readers. Anyone who has known the 'well to do' living today will know that their tastes aren't necessarily high-brow or 'educated'. This, thankfully, provides rich material for those of us writing, especially in crime...

Penny dreadfuls - Judith Flanders

 

[Robinne Weiss]

And don't forget that Shakespeare was writing bawdy plays for the masses. Whatever we might think today about his work--it was lowbrow stuff churned out for a profit. Whatever we think about media today, I don't think it's really that much different from the past. Lousy and/or low-brow (they're not necessarily the same, in my mind) stories were told for millennia--now we can write them down and distribute them more widely--it doesn't mean there are more bad stories being told, just that we have greater access to them. Is that a bad thing?

I have come a long way on my attitude toward self-publishing in the past couple of years. I used to think it was all crap, but in recent years, I've read some very good self-published books, and I've read some really awful and poorly edited books that were traditionally published. I've come to realise that there are reasons an author might decide to self-publish that aren't related to the difficulty of breaking into the traditional publishing route (and have little bearing on whether their work is 'good' or not). I've let go of the idea that my opinion of a book is relevant to anyone else, and I've come to appreciate the fact I can read stories that haven't had to pass the homogenising tastes of a committee.

 

[Rita Stradling]

Full disclosure: I'm a self-published author.

That said, I was very judgmental of self-publishing until I really entrenched myself in the world as a reader. I read probably about 100 books a year and now I'd say that 50-75 percent are self-pubbed. The reason for this is that, actually, is in the genres I read the movers and shakers are self-pubbed (New Adult, Urban Fantasy, YA Fantasy, space opera and several others). Also, after a while when you read the traditional pubbed books there is a modularity of theme, story and character arc. I find that self-pubbed books often break out and do the unexpected. Of the top sellers now, almost half are either self published or started that way. Also to the lack of gatekeepers: I'd argue that there are many, many more gatekeepers and those are the reviewers and social media popularity of a book.

 

[Island Writer]

This is an article that takes a very close look at the publishing industry in America, (it is likely very similar in most Western countries.) I think it provides a lot of clarity about how the system works because every industry operates within a system.

Wow, that's aN old article published in 2007. Ten years is a VERY long time in the digital era!

 

[Carol Rose]

The stigma that was once attached to self-publishing is long gone, at least in most genre fiction. And good riddance, IMHO. Can't help noticing the person who wrote the article linked in the first post is published in non-fiction. Three books. HUGE difference there. Oh, and she's a journalist. That's not the same thing as writing fiction, either.

So... draw your own conclusions, but her dissing self-pubbed fiction from the standpoint of what she writes would be like me putting down biomedical engineering because I have a nursing degree. Um... close (not really), but no dice.

 

[AgentPete]

I'd argue that there are many, many more gatekeepers and those are the reviewers and social media popularity of a book.

Very good point, Rita.

Many of the publishers I know have done a 180 on this in recent times. It's increasingly seen now as valuable industry R&D.

 

[Rita Stradling]

Also, I wanted to mention that many of the #1 bestsellers are self published books in disguise (especially in romance). It's extremely easy to make one's own imprint on Bowker or register their isbn as whatever "publisher" they want. Sometimes just for kicks I'll research the 'publishers' of these books and 90% of the time the only books that have been published under that imprint is from a single author. It's a technique that authors use to avoid the lingering stigma we talked about. But at the same time, many of the editors I know or have read about have about 50% self pubbed and 50% traditional clients, so except for the agent and publisher vetting, a lot of these books are undergoing the same editorial process.

One last thing, I voted 'An excellent form of literature with consistently high quality writing' but only because there wasn't an option that said: 'An excellent form of literature with high quality writing'. I don't really think 'consistently' can be applied to either self-publishing or traditional publishing, it's too subjective.