# The Ebook Revolution and The Modern Commercial Novel



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 9, 2013)

Has anyone ever considered that the Ebook revolution may change not only how literature is distributed but also what does and doesn't sell?
So many writer's blogs and Agent's web sites list their recommended do's and don'ts for writing.  I admit, I've been taken in by their advice at times.  Then I think, "but many of my favorite books start with a prologue that tells you little or nothing and only whet my appetite to find out what was going on ... so why wouldn't I do something similar if it fit in my story?"  

There are a ton of extremely dated styles that aren't acceptable (or are rarely acceptable) in the world of commercial publishing that may make a comeback thanks to the Ebook.  How about a book like Dracula that is mostly a bunch of letters - you are reading someone else's correspondence?  Would that sell in the Paperback novel world?  

The answer (I assume) is that there is an accepted "norm" and you must conform to it to be commercially viable in today's paperback novel factories.  

Do you care what or what isn't in vogue as far as commercially published novels?  Do you pattern yourself after that mold?  
Let's be honest, if it were music we would all be smashing our guitars and learning to play the computer - (FYI the guy that decided that guitar solos aren't cool anymore?  I have him tied up in my basement and I regularly torture him with kitchen and garden implements)

Reports are that 5 to 10% of independent Ebook authors publishing on Amazon and others are making big bucks. 
30 to 40% (with 6 titles or more) are making an average of $10,000 a year.
The rest (50%) aren't even making Mr. Piggybank happy.  

Speaking strictly for myself - I'd rather make the $10,000 and publish something compared by my readers and peers as "Similar to The Count of Monte Cristo" than make the big bucks by churning out some conformist drek similar to __________ insert title X, author X here _________ .

Thoughts?

David Gordon Burke


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 9, 2013)

Ebooks already outsell paperbacks. They are revolutionizing publishing for the fact you don't need to go out and buy a book from said store. Its cheaper, faster, and you can have a library of books at the palm of your hand just waiting to be read. Going the general route in publishing is a serious pain. It takes long hours and dedication. Not to mention somewhere to store your avalanche of rejection letters. I don't care about the writing style as long as it is a good story and it fits the genre. Call me old fashioned, but I still like to buy paperbacks merely for the fact I have something in my hand when I'm reading it. Many good stories can get passed up through publishing houses because of how many manuscripts they must go through. Harry Potter was rejected some 12 times before it got accepted. Self publishing can help you get your story out there with much more ease and be given a chance to see seen by the public. Both options are merely pathways to get your book out there. Still, it all hinges on the skill of the writer and the amount of time he is willing to sacrifice.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 9, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> Ebooks already outsell paperbacks.



Do you have a source for that info?  I'd be curious to read any breakdown on those numbers.
Last I heard, the ebook phenom had jumped from something like 3 to 6 to 12 % of the entire market share - huge growth.  Editorial staff should be jumping from 30th story windows any moment now like Black Tuesday.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 9, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Do you have a source for that info?  I'd be curious to read any breakdown on those numbers.
> Last I heard, the ebook phenom had jumped from something like 3 to 6 to 12 % of the entire market share - huge growth.  Editorial staff should be jumping from 30th story windows any moment now like Black Tuesday.
> 
> David Gordon Burke


I should have clarified that a bit more. Its a bit outdated, but its where I got my info from. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Amazon-Kindle-EBooks-Outselling-Paperbacks-354893/


----------



## movieman (Oct 9, 2013)

The e-book isn't really what's changed things, but the ease with which writers can publish anything they write, because e-books are so cheap to produce, and anyone can sell them. If you had to be a publisher to sell e-books, nothing much would have changed.

The old rules were based around what sells to publishers, who had to invest substantial amounts of money up-front to put a book on a book store shelves and, hence, didn't want to take too many risks. The new rules, to the extent they exist, are based around what sells to readers. When you can write anything you want and upload it for minimal cost other than your writing time, all that matters is whether enough people will want to read it to make the time worthwhile.

The latest buzz seems to be dinosaur erotica (no, I'm really not making that up). I can't imagine Random Penguin putting that on a book store shelf, but a few people appear to have got into the top 1,000 or so e-books on Amazon writing it.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 9, 2013)

When discussing any avenue of art, I don't think there is any definition of normalcy. Sure, for the time being it may seem that way, but there is always someone out there that breaks the rules and achieves commercial success. And then ultimately, they're pooped on. 

I know this name is despised, but like it or not, Chuck Palahniuk has been a writer that is very unconventional, and very successful. His novel Invisible Monsters is a great example as to what can be accepted for mass publication. 

As for the eBook, it's been beaten to death with speculation from everyone. I plan on sitting back, letting it run its course, and see what happens next.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 9, 2013)

> and you can have a library of books at the palm of your hand just waiting to be read.


People always mention this supposed benefit, and I've always thought it was silly. I suppose it is just to appease our rabid and largely programmed consumerist mindset.


----------



## bookmasta (Oct 9, 2013)

Jon M said:


> People always mention this supposed benefit, and I've always thought it was silly. I suppose it is just to appease our rabid and largely programmed consumerist mindset.



It beats having a basement full of books like I've acquired over the past few years.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 9, 2013)

I wonder if age demographics effect the data.  

Sometimes my wife will find a good piece, and I'll read it on her Nook.  But then I buy books and do research on a lap-top.

I just saw an advertisement for a wearable watch-esque computer.  My guess is that for an age not yet born there will just be "data."  You don't buy books, or get hard copies, you just plug into The Matrix.

I must admit, for tech reports and the latest news, I prefer magazines.  I'm sure you could find them on the 'net, but I actually like magazine racks.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 9, 2013)

Most, but not all, of the books on my Kindle are short story collections. I still prefer to read novels in hardcopy. I will visit a magazine's website, but usually for 'special content' (forums, back articles, etc.) but for straight up content I want the pages. I don't read a magazine linearly and hopping around is more intuitive in hardcopy.


----------



## J Anfinson (Oct 9, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Do you care what or what isn't in vogue as far as commercially published novels?  Do you pattern yourself after that mold?



Nope, and not that I'm aware of. I'm just trying to write the book I've always wanted to read.


----------



## SarahStrange (Oct 10, 2013)

We had a visiting author at my college this week. I asked him what his views where about the self-publishing, e-books and publishing industry in general. He said that ideally he would gear it towards the way that the comic book industry does things. This is how he explained it to us: Comic book stores request 20 magazines. Those magazines either sell or do not sell them. Either way, they pay the publisher and don't send anything back. This is not how it works with conventional 'books'. The books that stores do not sell, they can send back to the publishers. If bookstores where not allowed to send the books _back_ to the publisher, the 'industry' would be much healthier. 

I'm not sure if this answers your question. Actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I know almost nothing about publishing, so who knows if it's viable either way. It was an interesting idea anyhoo.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 10, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> ...Speaking strictly for myself - I'd rather make the $10,000 and publish something compared by my readers and peers as "Similar to The Count of Monte Cristo" than make the big bucks by churning out some conformist drek similar to __________ insert title X, author X here _________ .



What's "conformist drek?" 

Now, there are books that get published in the traditional manner and they happen to hit some sort of cultural sweet-spot, grab a fad wave and roll all the way to the best-seller list, despite being unworthy of the ink that's on their pages. (I guess people buy them for some sort of "entertainment value", the same way kids used rush to the drugstore so they could buy a magnifying glass to fry ants with.)

But, I have to argue against this argument of extremes and the implication that traditional publishing is "conformist drek." If it's compliance with expected standards of writing, whatever those are, then I'd have to argue against labeling it "conformist drek", as well.

Let's say I go to the drugstore with a prescription for Penicillin and it takes care of that peculiar burning sensation in my nether regions. Then, a few weeks later, I end up going back to the same drugstore so I can get a bottle of Robitussin DM. (There's a Rave Party going down and I want to be suitably prepared...) Once I realize that I've bought two products from them and both of those products perform as expected, am I supposed to accuse them of selling "conformist drek?" 

I don't buy e-books. I don't plan on buying e-books. I do not have an e-book reader and have no interest in getting one. However, I've seen some of the text of "popular" e-books and a good bit of e-books that have been "recommended" by some automated Nazi robot. (_You Vill Like T'is_...) I find myself suitably dismayed. My gast has been flabbered. What's more, I've got a friend who frequently purchases e-books and is more than happy to throw away a buck on someone's literary grab-bag. (We're like "Book Buddies" who go back and forth, recommending titles to each other.) However, there hasn't been one e-pub-only book he's tried to use to encourage me to get an e-reader. All I ever hear from him on the issue is "Oh, it was horrible. Maybe the next one will be better..." (He's smart - He wants me to buy an e-book reader so I can start loaning out my e-titles to him...  )

Lastly, I consider self-publishing to be the basest form of self-aggrandizement since Facebook. For myself, I could never self-publish unless every house would be willing to accept my title, but couldn't due to previous publishing commitments. (IOW - Fat chance of that happening.)

There are success stories in self-publishing. There are even second-print hard copies out there of e-published books. I've tried to read them. (Only in the store.) All I can say is that the ones that I read through sucked, bad. Horribly written, despite their catchy themes. There are some really good books that made the leap from e-book to hard copy, though. But, not many.

Do I pay attention to what is popular? Of course I do. Do I believe that there are certain expectations in writing that have to be filled? Absolutely. But, those sorts of expectations of craft are not limiting - They simply conform to those mechanics that we currently use in our culture to easily translate a bunch of written words into a story. There's some good old monkey-brain stuff in there, too, like "cause and effect" and the pairing of certain concepts and symbols. But, none of these are "limiting." One can be as avante gaurd as one wants to be and still manage to satisfy some basic storytelling necessities. Sure, it's possible someone could invent an entirely new way to tell a story. It's _possible. _But, it's not very likely to be easily digestible.

Writing has changed with our culture. Books that were written a couple hundred years ago are constructed differently. But, some of them were blockbusters in their day, too, and continue to be in our own time. There's a reason for that - They were simply well written, despite their archaic storytelling mechanics.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 10, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> What's "conformist drek?"



I'm not going to go into specifics as to which authors I am talking about but I will say that I have read both Ebooks from Independent Authors (about half of which weren't up to snuff and the other half were suprisingly good) and published authors with hundred million dollar a year sales.  In part it may have to do with expectations.  But within the Commercial Pulp Fiction publishing world there are more than a few writers whose prose is embarrassing.  I'll leave it at that.  I consider them hacks and their work to be drek.  (in no way am I referring to Stephen King ... for the record ... although the man has published a few stinkers)


These commercial writers seem to follow "most" of the so-called rules for the commercial novel.  Start with a bang, some action or dialogue and their books tend to conform to a certain expectation (although they tend to take huge liberties with POV)  But the prose is horribly flat.  I recently was reading a book ... I had to give up on it as it was so bad.  A sex scene and the Progatonist states "I was as hot as a thirty-five dollar pistol."  Come on.    



Morkonan said:


> They were simply well written, despite their archaic storytelling mechanics.



I realize that you are completely aware of this fact but let me point out that at the time the books (the classics you mention) were blockbusters, the mechanics weren't archaic ... and in my opinion are only archaic today since we tend to gravitate toward the commercial, formula pulp fiction that delivers punch in the first sentence.  Literature is competing with video games and hollyweird movies - if you want to sell you need to add in some special effects.
Personally, give me the archaic.  I have enough patience to actually read a book for the books sake.  Occasionally you need to punch your way through some sections that might, in comparison with Playstation 3 be on the dull side in order to find the gem of a story.  I took me three tries to get through "The Count of Monte Cristo."  It was worth the effort.  (I had the abridged version - the uncut is clearer)  There are huge sections of Lord of the Ring that are dull, dull, dull.  Moby Dick switches main protagonist after about 40 pages.  Still ... in another league than the hundred million men.    


David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 10, 2013)

David said:
			
		

> today since we tend to gravitate toward the commercial, formula pulp fiction that delivers punch in the first sentence. Literature is competing with video games and hollyweird movies - if you want to sell you need to add in some special effects.
> Personally, give me the archaic. I have enough patience to actually read a book for the books sake. Occasionally you need to punch your way through some sections that might, in comparison with Playstation 3 be on the dull side in order to find the gem of a story. . . . There are huge sections of Lord of the Ring that are dull, dull, dull.



For discussion's sake: Have you considered the possibility that writing nowadays is actually _better_ than writing from the older days?

That dull sections are less likely to pass by an editor's desk without him scratching the whole area off in red ink?

I agree that there are a lot of bad writers out there today. However, I also feel a lot of the classics were poorly written, as well. 

It's just that, during those days, writing technique was in its infancy, and so, what your average editor would tear apart today, back then was forgivable and often, expected, as the improvements and alternatives had not yet been fully realized.

A similarity to drawn upon is chess. The old masters from centuries ago would get stomped, utterly, by the masters of today.

As time progresses in most all crafts, the level of performance increases. I feel this is true with writing, as well. Comparing a well-written classic to somebody's modern "pulp fiction" is a bit of a flimsy argument, in my opinion. Using the chess comparison again, that would be like comparing Paul Morphy (an American chess master from the 1800's) to one of today's average tournament player. Of course Morphy's games would be better. A club player is nothing in comparison, just as the same club player would be nothing in comparison to today's Grandmasters.

If we were really to compare writing from the past to modern writing, we'd have to look at books of similar genre, style, and, likely, factor in success as well. Cross-examining across different styles, genres, and subjects seems like a faulty form of examination.

That said, I don't think _all_ authors from the past are bad, simply because of their time. Many I consider giants. However, I view a lot of modern authors as giants, too.

Yes, there's an inundation of mediocre writing in the market, now that anyone can self-publish. That doesn't mean they'll affect the game, though, in my opinion. Readers will stick with the authors they know and trust. 

The new authors that come along with sub-par writing will find themselves factored out through a Darwinian version of "Survival of the Fittest". If an author's writing isn't strong enough to build a loyal fan-base and readership, they'll be weeded out, die off, be forced to find some other profession.

With an over-saturation of fiction on the market, I'd say it pushes writers to become even better. To stand out among the "drek", you'll have to up your game. Make your readers swoon. 

Flimsy, dull, or weak writers will be forced to evolve to gain not only more punch, but more emotional weight with their stories. Readers will benefit from the tooth-and-nail environment. The writers that rise to the top will be stronger for it.

Seems like a good thing, to me. :encouragement:


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 10, 2013)

Kyle, agreed, there will always be competition to improve the breed.  The issue I have is can "the best reality show" be just an entertainment equivalent of "the best enema"?

What's a B&N is square footage?  50,000 square feet?  Well, in our B&N the best sellers are on one table near the door.  With any math equation, be that actual number of books or real dollars sold, it's far less than one percent.

Clealry "quality" has a long way to go.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 10, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> ...With an over-saturation of fiction on the market, I'd say it pushes writers to become even better. To stand out among the "drek", you'll have to up your game. Make your readers swoon.
> 
> Flimsy, dull, or weak writers will be forced to evolve to gain not only more punch, but more emotional weight with their stories. Readers will benefit from the tooth-and-nail environment. The writers that rise to the top will be stronger for it.
> 
> Seems like a good thing, to me. :encouragement:



In regards to e-publishing, I have to disagree a little bit. The market is flooded with garbage and there are very few ways to keep a novel's head above the swill... There might be a gem in there, somewhere, that nobody has heard about. Good luck finding it. Traditional publishing demands, at least, a minimum standard of quality be followed. Well, they used to... I just bought several paperbacks that were horribly written. Yet, there they are, on the shelf. I've noted the lack of quality and will be more careful when buying from this particular imprint. (I pay a great deal of attention to the publisher of the books I'm considering, these days. While few self-published works ever make it to the brick&mortars, some still do.)

But, at least I can look around the book, test-driving it, so to speak, before I buy. I guess you could do that with an e-book, but there's so many of them that haven't been vetted by anyone that it's just not worth it to wade through titles by unknown authors.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 11, 2013)

Sigh.

Once again, a discussion about epublishing (I think) has merged with discussion of self-publishing (or is it the other way around)? Could we please attempt to keep the _formats _separate from the _method_?

Anyway, I don't think ebooks have changed how things are written, or will be written. Trade publishers do all sorts of formats (print, e, audio) so why would ebooks change what they're publishing? Self-publishers can write whatever they want, however they want, so there's no change coming there. But there are always "waves" of popularity - and then it recedes or crashes and some other genre comes into "power". Same with styles - now it's more minimalist than it was a few years ago; give it another few years, we'll probably see ten-page long descriptions of the character's shoe come into vogue. Who knows?


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 11, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> It's just that, during those days, writing technique was in its infancy, and so, what your average editor would tear apart today, back then was forgivable and often, expected, as the improvements and alternatives had not yet been fully realized.
> 
> As time progresses in most all crafts, the level of performance increases.
> 
> ...



I like and see your point and mostly agree.  However, I don't know what I think about the "infancy" idea.  As with everything, I am forced to look at it statistically.  Count back 750 years from 1975 (an arbitrary date).  How many books were published in that time period that went on to become classics?  Compare that with the number of books being published today.  Do the same calculation forward from 1975.  Compare.  I'd guess more is being published and less is being remembered.  Same goes for music.  People ask me if I am listening to X new band.  The answer is inevitably no.  Why?  Because there is so much music that has withstood the test of time that I haven't heard yet, why waste my bucks on something that is just a trend and will be forgotten faster than it takes you to get to the bottom of a bag of popcorn?  

To think that things get better as time goes on is a little on the idealistic side.  Things tend to get commercialized as time goes by.  Yes, real quality work still exists (in all fields) but the simple "process" of modernization of any field will affect it as a whole.
Don't tell me that B.B. King is doing his best work today when the record producers insist that instead of recording a full band, they track his album using ProTools and then overdub his guitar and Voice.  Art?  Film? 

And I don't think that self publishing led the way for really crappy writers to swamp the market with drek.  That was happening long before AMAZON opened up the market.  
But I do agree - as it opens up it will get more competitive.  What that means is that one side of the market will increase in quality while another side increases in commerciality.  
Here's wishing all our members find their niche, cut out a little slice of it for themselves and go on to create something memorable (commercial or otherwise - memorable.)

David Gordon Burke
PS.  to that one member that hit the bigs, sells the movie rights and buys a Bel Air mansion - I'm always great company to have poolside.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 11, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Once again, a discussion about epublishing (I think) has merged with discussion of self-publishing (or is it the other way around)?



It looks to me as if those concepts are on the verge of becoming one and the same.  Why would a big name author even bother with a publishing house when he can afford to do it all himself and reap the lion's share of the profit.  And I doubt that " ____________ insert million $ author's name here _______" would have any problem negotiating a better deal with AMAZON and the other platforms than the 70% they give to the average Joe.  I have read that it is already happening, I just can't quote the source or the particular writer.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 11, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> It looks to me as if those concepts are on the verge of becoming one and the same.  Why would a big name author even bother with a publishing house when he can afford to do it all himself and reap the lion's share of the profit.



Because those big name authors want to be writers instead of publishers. Which is also why a great many debut authors and midlist authors stay with trade publishing.

Self-publishers have been trying to conflate the "self" with the "e" forever, and many have tried to make it seem like it's only self-publishers who are using epublishing. Well, no. A format is a format, and can and is used by any kind of publisher - trade, indie, or self.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 11, 2013)

I think there are those authors that do choose to self publish, but I doubt anyone would argue it is not through choice for the vast majority.

I can imagine that a lot of self published authors may struggle to accept they're simply not good enough as yet for publication on merit. I fear (in those cases) that such vanity leaves them with a bar far lower than they may otherwise be capable of hurdling.

From my perspective, I have two stories that I feel are good enough to entertain readers, but I accept I have a long way to go before I can write them well enough. - It would be easy to self-publish, but I'd rather improve them and see where it leads...

...When/if the day comes that I tell my stories in what I feel is the best manner I ever can, and agents do say no thank you, I will accept I am below par. At that point, I'll throw them on the self publication market, and hope they stand head and shoulders above much of the garbage you find there.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 11, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Because those big name authors want to be writers instead of publishers. Which is also why a great many debut authors and midlist authors stay with trade publishing.
> 
> Self-publishers have been trying to conflate the "self" with the "e" forever, and many have tried to make it seem like it's only self-publishers who are using epublishing. Well, no. A format is a format, and can and is used by any kind of publisher - trade, indie, or self.



HAHA.  That was a rhetorical question.  
Obviously, there are advantages to doing it both ways but I ask....if Stephen King decided tomorrow to do it his way and go indie - after paying for editting, cover design, marketting etc. would he make more or less off each new novel?  It's bound to happen one of these days with one of the bigs.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 11, 2013)

I may be wrong, but isn't this already happening in the music industry?


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 11, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I can imagine that a lot of self published authors may struggle to accept they're simply not good enough as yet for publication on merit. I fear (in those cases) that such vanity leaves them with a bar far lower than they may otherwise be capable of hurdling.
> 
> From my perspective, I have two stories that I feel are good enough to entertain readers, but I accept I have a long way to go before I can write them well enough. - It would be easy to self-publish, but I'd rather improve them and see where it leads...
> 
> ...When/if the day comes that I tell my stories in what I feel is the best manner I ever can, and agents do say no thank you, I will accept I am below par. At that point, I'll throw them on the self publication market, and hope they stand head and shoulders above much of the garbage you find there.



First off, I do not understand the concept of "Vanity Publication"  It may be that I am the first Human Being in history that has no vanity whatsoever but.... the concept doesn't work for me.  I see it just the reverse.  I think it is a person's vanity that would stop them from publishing their work.  Vanity, lack of confidence, fear of criticism, fear of being ridiculed by friends, family, coworkers, the guys at the bar, old high school chums etc.  That doesn't work on me nor does it bother me.  

Suck?  There is a good chance that some parts of my WIP suck like a black Hole.  That's why I have beta-readers and an Editor.  That's why I revise my work about 9 times before I consider it finished.  It's part of a process which won't be complete until I go through it from start to finish. (There is no if/when - there is only NOW.)  It's putting my work under the kind of pressure, including the deadlines and project management etc. etc. that are all part and parcel of being a writer.  It's turning a piece of coal into (hopefully) a diamond.  (with a few flaws?  a cubic zirconia?  wax pastie?)

You don't perfect "*Malagueña*" by Ernesto Lecuona on Classical guitar and then play it for yourself in your bedroom.  You don't learn "Rude Mood" by Stevie Ray Vaughan note for note on the Electric guitar and then NOT jam it out at the local dive's regular Tuesday Night Blues Jam.  

There's Vanity and then there's fear.  I have none of either.  
What I will have is 4 titles on Amazon before the end of the year.  1 Fiction, 1 Memoir, 1 English Language tutorial and 1 Cookbook.  
And I will have a sense of completion that might last a day or two.  But I'll be too busy writing my next book(s) and planning the ones after that to indulge any vanity. 

I guess it's part of the benefit of life in Mexico.  No one here would be impressed in the least so it's like a tree falling in a forrest - how can you be vain in an empty room?  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Myers (Oct 11, 2013)

2010 called. It wants its epublishing thread back.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 11, 2013)

DGB, you seem to be taking my words as if they were addressed at you personally, and I promise you that they weren't! All I've done is applied my reasoning to a debate, and explained why I have chosen the route I am following.

And I'll tell you, if you're a man devoid of vanity or fear, you're a rarity, possibly even unique. I can make no such claim, and I doubt many others could either. Having said that, I think I was clear in explaining that I would self-publish if I'd exhausted the merit publication option. I'm just been open and honest in both my methodology, and the reasoning behind it. 

Now honesty - there is one thing I can say I embrace.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 11, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Obviously, there are advantages to doing it both ways but I ask....if Stephen King decided tomorrow to do it his way and go indie - after paying for editting, cover design, marketting etc. would he make more or less off each new novel?  It's bound to happen one of these days with one of the bigs



There are very successful authors who are self-publishing their backlists, and I believe a few are simultaneously self- and trade publishing. I think you'll find that 'seasoned' authors/editors/agents/publishers understand that the two methods are not mutually exclusive, career-wise. I have a dear friend who's written and trade published five books and recently self-published another, just for the experience. However, she doesn't intend to do it again because she's too busy writing to worry about the publishing end of it. And that what the whole thing boils down to, IMO. Too many new writers forget/ignore that publishing is a business and needs to be treated as such, so they go into self-publishing just because they can (and because they've been led to believe it's the easy road to riches...).

As to whether or not SK would make more or less, someone of his caliber would probably make as much, possibly more. Someone not a household name maybe not. And of course, it would still depend on the quality of the people hired - readers will forgive one, maybe two crappy books. After that...


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 11, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> DGB, you seem to be taking my words as if they were addressed at you personally, and I promise you that they weren't!
> Now honesty - there is one thing I can say I embrace.



Not at all.  Another character of mine is that I don't believe in being insulted and I don't try to read between the lines.  I in no way thought it was about my choices.  My reasoning is my own.  Another person's is his own.  Not one or the other is better.
I will say this though....(cause deep down, obviously I'm a batter for the "get it published" camp) LIFE IS SHORT.  Maybe your story needs to be told, maybe it is important, maybe you will have a horrible blender accident tomorrow while mixing up a batch of daiquiris, Maybe Maybe Maybe.

Best wishes anyway.
David Gordon Burke
Note: do people get bummed when a thread goes off the rails, down a tangent that was unplanned?  I don't get it.  Never bugs me.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 11, 2013)

Perhaps, as I'm of a reasonable age and have only been writing for three years, I can see the distance I have to cover before I can tell a story the best I can. - And yes, I'd call that a form of vanity. - It is more likely than not that I will self publish in due course, but I'd never consider publishing a novel that was told in a substandard fashion; if I ever did, death by blender would be design, rather than accident.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 11, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I can imagine that a lot of self published authors may struggle to accept they're simply not good enough as yet for publication on merit.



Being traditionally published should not be confused with "publication on merit". The primary criteria for a traditionally published book's selection is marketability, not merit. Any of the major houses would buy and publish your grocery list if they thought they could sell it for $26.00.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 11, 2013)

Of course I do accept that there are a mass of very talented authors who have no option other than to self-publish as the market for their work is not broad enough. Likewise, I am sure such authors accept that the publishing industry must make decisions commercially.

Surely a well written story in a popular genre is in with a chance of publication on merit? If it is otherwise, I would be more than a little surprised!

Surprised and disenchanted...


----------



## Neagen (Oct 15, 2013)

I remember seeing at least one story on the news about how those few big selling "author X here _________ ."s are keeping the print publishers afloat, which, apparently not unlike other print media, are struggling to survive.  Aside form whether or not I ever write or publish a book, as a book lover, of the hardcopy kind, I appreciate their contribitions in keeping the boat from sinking altogether.

DGB, I think you should continue to go for it.  As you wrote, you'd rather continue to publish that way, than not at all.  And I think you and anyone should write what they want to write.  Unless making it big and making lots of money is your priority.  But I'm guessing that that would make you more mercenary than you'd like to be.  Of course I'd like commercial success and lots of money.  But sounds like writing without joy to me.  Bleh.

This is not directed at anyone.  It's not personal.  I'm only stating how I feel about it.  I've always disliked self-publishing being called vanity publishing.  I don't think there's any way around it: the intention often seems to be to disparage self-publishing writers.

From Wikipedia:


> The term "vanity press" is sometimes considered pejorative and is often used to imply that an author who uses such a service is only publishing out of vanity and that his or her work could not be commercially successful. In other words, a work published by a vanity press is typically assumed to be unpublishable elsewhere or not publishable on a timely basis.


The implication seems to be that writers who are lucky enough to be picked up by a commercial publisher, by contrast, have no vanity.  Worse, in my opinion, it seems to imply that only those chosen by a commercial publisher have any business being published...perhaps being seen or heard at all.  Self-publishers aren't legitimate.  They circumvented the gatekeepers. 

Well, I don't want my time wasted by bad writing, either.  But, like Terry D pointed out, merit, good writing, isn't necessarily what the commercial publishers choose to go with, anyway.  And one of the things that that famous J.K. Rowling story tells me is the _Harry Potter_ books might never have been published, if the last reader she tried didn't give it a second glance because she liked the binder(?) Rowling had used.  And wouldn't that be a shame?  Should the gatekeepers have absolute power?  Nah.

[video=youtube;DKXQbIBt9C8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXQbIBt9C8[/video]


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 15, 2013)

Well, the gatekeepers never did have absolute power, at least not the reputable ones. Writers, whether new or old-hands, always have negotiating power (note: negotiating, not dictating) and the right to walk away if they don't like the terms. And publishers who want to have quality writers are not going to be draconian in their methods because writers will then go to a competitor. And I have never called true self-publishers vanity publishers because they are two separate things (although nowadays the old vanity publishers have morphed themselves into 'self-publishing services').

There is room in the world for both self- and trade publishing. I don't know why some people insist it has to be one or the other, or that one is killing the other, or any of that garbage. I would only hope that writers decide which route they want to take based on facts and not misinformation (such as the conflation of e-publishing and self-publishing).


----------

