# Animosity Towards Publishers and Editors?



## Robert Donnell

I have been accused of having animosity towards Publishers and Editors.  True sort of.

I have spent several years talking to writers, learning the business side of it and I have heard a lot of horror stories about Publishers and Editors. Now to be fair I do not know if that is 99% of the time or 1%, but I dislike having anyone who can veto me being able to eat and live indoors.

This is not animosity just a statement of fact.  These people are headed to the trash heap of history, and I say good riddance to bad rubbish!  Whatever the future holds for writers Corporate Publishers and Editors will not be there.   Just as newspapers are a very fast declining industry so are printed books.  Thanks to the magic of print on demand, books will be around for some time yet but the _publishing _of books will not.

If there is anything useful that Corporate Publishers and Editors do I am sure either the writers themselves or some other person will step up to the plate and do it.  I had to do my own cover art, the horror, the horror!

Reality is changing the world of writing, correction technology  is changing writing.

Do I have animosity towards Publishers and Editors?  I would if I thought of them at all.  I don't spend much time thinking of buggy whip makers or do-do birds either.


----------



## Fin

What traditional publishers do is a lot more than just cover art. I disagree with publishers going out of business. I think they'll just transition into the e-book world, and still beat out the sales of the self-published. Book store companies will be going out of business left and right of course, but publishers will remain. I think your thoughts of what publishing companies do is wrong. They do so much more than print the book.

If I see an e-book, or a tradional book with something like the Penguin logo or the HarperCollins logo on it, I'd definitely buy that over the majority of self published things. Simply because those logos tell me that there's a pretty good chance I'll enjoy it. The thing is, tradional publishers have one thing a lot of writers who self-publish don't. Standards. When I see a self-published book, from what I've experienced, the majority of them have been terrible and not worth reading past the first page. Higher quality books with higher quality authors usually come from publishing companies. It's difficult to get published that way for a reason. Yes, great books can be declined, and horrible books can be accepted. But honestly, a lot of the self-published people who swear their work is amazing and that the editors are complete idiots for declining their manuscripts, aren't very good writers.

So yes, I think you have animosity towards them. 

You saying that it's a statement of fact does not make it so. It simply means that the only fact there is that it's your opinion.

But I would like to hear actual reasons you have for disliking editors and publishers.

As it stands, self-publishing lacks a lot of respect it needs to succeed. Even as printed books die out, traditional publishing will still probably prevail, simply because they have a respectable name attached to them.


----------



## Kyle R

Jeff Gerke (decades of experience in the editing and publishing industry) says it best, so I'll simply type it up for you to read.

 I think the hatred towards editors results from a lack of knowledge of what editors (have to) do. It's not an easy job. Often times, it's a thankless one.

Anywho, without further ado, I'll let Mr. Gerke take it away. Since this is from a published book, I'm only going to post excerpts (also, since I'm typing them up by hand, I'll keep them brief, though I'll try to capture the main ideas):

---

I'm going to take you inside the mind of an acquisitions editor. It's a frightening place, I assure you. And yet your novel's first fifty pages will most likely have to pass through such a mind if your book is to ever get published. So it is a dark cave we must explore.

Most authors on the "pre-published" side of publishing companies tend to see them as faceless blocs, mysterious monoliths inside which arcane processes are brought to bear on books, resulting in sometimes brilliant, sometimes baffling, publishing decisions. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

The reality is that the publishing companies are just like any other kind of company. They're filled with people pretty much like you who make more or less the same decisions you would make if you were in their place. The key isn't to decrypt some kind of alien thought process, but to simply understand what factors are weighing on the mind of the person looking at your (pages).

Before an acquisitions editor gets to your first (pages)--before, indeed, she gets to your proposal at all--she is thinking about many other things.

First, she's incredibly busy, and has most likely not been allocated any extra time in which she is allowed to go off into a corner and read through the stack of proposals and manuscripts sent to her by agents or amassed through other means. The so-called slush pile. And yet she knows she must find new novels to fill the open slots in her upcoming release schedule, and she knows she has to find good new novels, both to help the company succeed in the future and to secure her own position in the publishing house. Editors at publishing companies tend to come and go as quickly as football coahces with losing teams. So she knows she has to score a few touchdowns for the team, and that involves finding good new books.

And by "good" I don't necessarily mean well written or literarily remarkable. I mean good in terms of sales.

She's learned the hard way that she's not to be looking for Faulkners or Steinbecks or Forsters, but Benjamins. Cash cows. Books that will sell lots of copies and save the company for another six months.

Now, our heroine knows all this, but she still loves a great story and still values the work of a skill wordsmith. So she resolves to find the best-written novels she can that will possibly turn a profit.

The person looking at your first fift pages is stressed, unsure about her own job security, overworked, burdened with the need to read proposals but allocated no time to do so, and trying to find novels that are both wonderfully written and financially viable.

Literary agents are looking for many of the same things that acquisitions editors look for, though their slush pile is much, much larger and of much poorer quality. The typical agent is open to anyone who can send him an e-mail, whereas the acquisitions editor at a large house is mostly shielded from this.

Mainly, an agent is looking for what projects could potentially be big sales hits.

You just need to understand that publishing is a business.

(Now our acquisitions editor is) trying to get through one hundred (proposals) in a hurry. Yours is number sixty-two, and sh'es getting a little numb in the brain. She's found a couple of proposals that look interesting, and she's set these aside to contact the agents and request the full manuscripts.

Now she opens your and starts reading. She's hoping it will be fantastic, but in her experience she knows the odds are against it.

---

So there's a brief glimpse into the job of an editor (and, to some extent, an agent). Take it for what you will. If you're interested in reading more of the book that excerpt was taken from, it's "The First Fifty Pages" by Jeff Gerke.


----------



## Fin

To add on to what Kyle said, check this blog post out. It's been posted somewhere on these forums before, but I don't recall by who. Anyway, here: I am your editor.


----------



## Tiamat

You may say it's simply a statement of fact, but it certainly comes across as animosity.  You strike me as someone who doesn't handle rejection well.

But hey, if you'd rather not to jump through the hoops of the publishing industry and would prefer, instead, to self-publish and do everything from drafting to promoting on your own, I wish you all the best.  I figure the odds of being a self-published success are about as slim as they are for those of us who continue to do things via publishing houses.  I'd say the biggest difference is that I don't have to pay out of pocket to get rejected.

Good luck to you, sir.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Kyle, actually I have read that somewhere or heard a remarkably similar story.  But that really illustrates the problem rather well it is Corporate Mediocrity.  The point is that good books are rejected, bad books are published.  I can not think of a better description of the problem.   

“Well you don’t understand.”  Oh I understand, I just don’t have any desire to play their little reindeer games.  I have enough problems, trying to please an Editor who just does not give a damn, is a problem that I neither want nor have.

Tiamat,   There are two possibilities one it might be a one in ten thousand shot of getting a big contract with a big publishing house but look at the other side I have self published and sold at least one book, for money.  However small a success that is, it is a success and it is my own.  I wrote a book that I would like to read myself, I really doubt that it would have much appeal to the masses but I think a real Science Fiction/Fantasy fan would love to read it.  The answer may be niche markets.


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> The point is that good books are rejected, bad books are published.



Many more good books get published than bad books, but hey, show me any system that's perfect. With self-publishing they _all _get published - and that's an improvement why?

Show me a self-publisher who doesn't jump on the "Big Bad Trade Publisher" bandwagon and you'll show me a self-publisher that might be worth reading.


----------



## Chaeronia

Robert Donnell said:


> Do I have animosity towards Publishers and Editors? I would if I thought of them at all. I don't spend much time thinking of buggy whip makers or do-do birds either.



If there's one thing that comes across loud and clear in your thread concerned with publishers and editors, it's the shoulder-shrugging lack of thought you supply to the issue of publishers and editors.

I await your nonchalant, uncaring, paradoxically detailed musings on whip makers and do-do birds with interest.


----------



## Baron

shadowwalker said:


> Many more good books get published than bad books, but hey, show me any system that's perfect. With self-publishing they _all _get published - and that's an improvement why?
> 
> Show me a self-publisher who doesn't jump on the "Big Bad Trade Publisher" bandwagon and you'll show me a self-publisher that might be worth reading.


I agree with you.  I like the autonomy of self publishing but there is no vetting system on what gets published.  The mainstream publishers provide a standard and it's just tough on those who can't meet it.  Sure, good books get rejected but the bottom line is they won't invest in something they don't think will sell.


----------



## garza

Robert Donnell - You are talking bad about the people I have depended on, learned from, and befriended over more than half a century. My two best teachers were the editors of the two local newspapers who started publishing my stories back in '54. The cheques from the publishers you want to see go out of business have paid the rent and bought the groceries all these years. Yes, the world is changing, and a new system is evolving, but we will not know for a while all the details of how that system is going to work. 

The truth is, the old system was never perfect, but it kept a lot of us from ever having to go out and look for a job. I, for one, hate to see it go.


----------



## Sam

shadowwalker said:


> Many more good books get published than bad books, but hey, show me any system that's perfect. With self-publishing they _all _get published - and that's an improvement why?
> 
> Show me a self-publisher who doesn't jump on the "Big Bad Trade Publisher" bandwagon and you'll show me a self-publisher that might be worth reading.



I don't hate traditional publishers and I self-published. I sold approximately 400 copies. Considering that the average traditionally published book sells 800 in its entire lifetime, I think I did all right. 

I did it because every author, whether they desire to be traditionally published or not, should self-publish at least one book in their lifetime. It gives you an insight into what happens with the big publishers.

As for the OP: I believe you have been somewhat misled. I've met and spoken with several published authors and have only once heard of a 'horror story', as you put it. The truth is, there will always be one company who doesn't meet the expectations of a client. It may be the case that those clients in turn engage in hyperbole when they speak to fellow authors. One bad experience thus earns a company a bad reputation for life. 

Whether you choose self-publishing, or venture down the tortuous road that is traditional-publishing, you are bound to run into problems sooner or later.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Sam W, Wow! 800 is that all?  As of this morning I am at 2 for money and 137 freebies at AmazonKDP that is not bad for one week on the market, the freebies period will end soon and past that point it is 70% gravy.  Now I have to push the book

Garza, I understand that some authors did okay under the old system, good for you.  But today in 2012 I see no reason to invest that much time and energy into the old system when it has zero future.

For those of you who think that I am an idiot, you may be right but if I hit the magical 800 mark without a publisher then I will be ahead of the game.

For you timid souls who have yet to publish a single book for money, I challange you to do as well as I.  If you think that you are better than me, prove it!


----------



## Sam

Some people aren't ready to publish a book yet. It took me seven novels and five-and-half years of constant reading and writing to produce a novel I felt was worthy of being published, whether self or otherwise. Other people may not even be interested in publishing, and write simply for a hobby or because they love to express themselves in words. 

I think you have a misconception about publishing. If you can sell 800 books, more power to you. Note that in my earlier post I said the 'average' traditionally published book sells 800 copies. If you want your sales to be average, aim for 800. You'll break even on your investment, as well as make a little profit which will go towards the printing of your next book or another print-run of the same novel. To be truly successful as a self-publisher, however, you need to know your market as well as the publishers that you seemingly hate know it. You need to understand niche markets, advertising, publicising, pricing, editing, cover art, layout, fonts, headings, and a wealth of other things. 

The problem with self-publishers is they are under the illusion that writing the book is all they need to do. I wrote a 200,000-word novel last year. I'm old-school in that I always have two spaces after every full-stop. When you realise the pages you stand to save by narrowing this to one, not to mention the pages you can save by changing fonts and hyphenating at the end of lines, you will realise that you've wasted money unnecessarily. Structure, line-spacing, and margins/gutters are all extremely important tools that you need to have a working knowledge of. 

By all means self-publish. Just know what you're getting into beforehand.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Actually my novel was gorgeous but I had to butcher it for Kindle. It was lovingly illustrated, the models were women I served with in Iraq and/or art I did myself, ever word was worried over for 9 years.  I don’t care if some critic does not like it, it was my best effort!

If some of your best work ended up in a trash can, I grieve for you.


----------



## Baron

You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of self published authors who have achieved the measure of success that can be gained through the major publishers.  The fact is that the traditional publishing houses will be around for a while because they provide a bench mark for people who don't want to plough through the dung heap of unsolicited works that are self published to find those few rare gems.


----------



## garza

Robert - Countless numbers of writers have done very well under the old system. I'm in no way unique. Many more will continue to do well. Your statement that editors 'don't give a damn' is way off the mark. Every editor I've ever worked with cared very much and did all they could to help me and others. They are not there to lock the gate. They are there to keep the gate open for good writers and to help each writer improve his or her craft. 

No publishing house could accept more than a small fraction of the material submitted. You seem to be saying that an editor should accept and a publisher print everything everyone sends them. That can only work when there is no cost to the publisher, and that's why epublishing is catching on. There is so little overhead, per page, that only modest fees are needed to cover the cost. For print-on-demand the printing cost does not exist until the book is sold. Compare that to a press run of ten thousand copies that might sit in a warehouse for years before being recycled because they never sold. I've seen the slush pile in a couple of houses. Unbelievable, and every one of those manuscripts came from someone convinced they had written a best seller. 

To get around that slush pile you need two things. You need to have a product that can sell and you need a good agent. The agency system is a good one - a fine-mesh first filter. The experienced and reputable agent submits a manuscript and says, 'This will sell'. There is still the risk it won't sell, but the odds are much better than picking something out of the slush pile and hoping for the best.

As an alternative to a good agent you need someone who won't give up. _Confederacy of Dunces_ illustrates the alternative. But even after the international acceptance that the book is a masterpiece complete with Pulitzer Prize, the plain fact is that _Confederacy of Dunces_ was so far outside the mainstream that its rejection by publisher after publisher is understandable. Simon and Schuster made the initial mistake of assigning an editor, Robert Gottlieb, to work with Toole in a misguided effort to align the book with perceived current tastes of readers. Gottlieb was a good editor with an impossible task. The essential nature of the book needed to be changed to do what he was supposed to do, and when the essential nature of a book is changed, what do you have? Nothing. Gottlieb's edits were later burned by Toole's mother, who went from publisher to publisher trying to find a home for her dead son's book. Whether any agent, no matter how respected, could ever have sold _Confederacy of Dunces_ to a mainstream publisher is doubtful. LSU Press finally accepted it, and the book attracted first a local following, people like me who know New Orleans well, and soon enough by people around the world recognised Toole's genius, though it continues to be classed as a cult classic. 

Were the publishers who rejected _Confederacy of Dunces_ right or wrong? One publisher's rep I knew well years ago told me that sure, they wish they had published it, but the fact was they couldn't. It was too big a gamble when there were many good mainstream manuscripts being submitted that had a chance of success. An academic press like LSU Press can afford to take chances that others can't. 

Do not cheer the downfall of the major publishing houses. Without them, who would have published the millions of books in our libraries? Think what the world would be like if they had never existed, if the investors had never bought presses and hired staff. Their day may be near its end, but I see no reason to cheer their death.


----------



## Robert Donnell

[h=2]Garza, I absolutely agree with you 100% but that is in the past, it is different today, it costs Amazon KDP almost noting to publish and sell my book.  For those who would make an issue of this I have a few choice words:  50 Shades of Grey,  Self published and successful.  Yes a big publisher picked it up after it was a successful book, but it's initial success had zero to do with any editor or publisher.  Which is my point.

I have run my own business, no it was not a success but I fed myself for a year, lost not a penny, had a good time and learned a lot about business.  My decision to self publish was a well reasoned business decision.

If the big publishing houses do not care to do business with me that is their prerogative.  Just as it is mine to not do business with them, until such time as I see it in my best interest to do so.[/h]


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> [h=2]Garza, I absolutely agree with you 100% but that is in the past, it is different today, it costs Amazon KDP almost noting to publish and sell my book.



So wait - are you saying Amazon is your publisher? Or are they just distributing your self-published book? There's a difference.


----------



## Kyle R

I don't think anything less of those who go the self-publishing route. I respect them, because I see it as a harder route to walk down, though one that can reap great benefits.

One of the reasons I am going to pursue the traditional publishing route is I simply don't know much about marketing and sales. I have spent several years learning the craft of fiction, and that's primarily where my interest lies. I don't wish to spend several more years learning how to market and sell my book. I'd prefer to leave that in the hands of a publisher with decades of experience in that field.


----------



## Robert Donnell

For those who walk down that path toward the Publisher's office, I too respect them, but I see that as less and less lucretive as time goes by.


----------



## garza

Robert - It's not all in the past. I'm 72 and still selling what I write. The world is changing, but it hasn't changed so far that major publishers have disappeared. 

Publishers will want to do business with you when you can demonstrate you have a product they can sell. Connect with a good agent, and if your work is as good as you say it is you won't have to pay anyone anything. They will pay you. That's how it works.


----------



## Jon M

Seems like this negative view of editors and publishers stems from the writer's need to have his work earn him money and validation. It's _their_ fault he is not successful, _their_ fault his work is not being widely read; _they_ are holding him back. This is a backward way of looking at the situation. Instead of trying to better himself and reach that publishing standard, he believes he's already there. I'd guess that in most instances this is not the case.

My own view of editors and publishers is rather benign, perhaps borne out of apathy. Obviously they are out to make money, but quite often I think they also provide a valuable, and thankless, service to writers -- saving them from the future embarrassment of having some truly dreadful work associated with their name.


----------



## josh.townley

Just out of curiosity, Robert, how did you go about your submission process to the publishers? Did you try to contact agents first?


----------



## shadowwalker

Jon M said:


> Obviously they are out to make money, but quite often I think they also provide a valuable, and thankless, service to writers -- saving them from the future embarrassment of having some truly dreadful work associated with their name.



True - and let's face it - if they make money, we make money. Their success and ours are entwined. So I definitely want them making money! :triumphant:


----------



## Robert Donnell

Josh, This book is something that I have been working on for a decade, and after hearing what passed for "success" stories with Publishers and Editors, I determined that I was not going to waste a moment of my time with any of them.

This is a business decision to not waste my time.

Yes, yes, yes going to an agent to get it to a publisher was the way it used to be.  That is no longer true, sorry.  Did I ever tell you guys that I used to be in the printing business in Boston, MA in the 1980s?  I have seen what it looks like in the belly of the beast and the glory that was the US printing industry.  I can still smell the ink.

Those days are past.


----------



## patskywriter

BookReader said:


> … Why receive only 17.5% when you could get 70%?



I want to go the traditional route because my book happens to be  nonfiction (a how-to book for caregivers of Alzheimer's patients).  Naturally, I want people who need that sort of information to be able to  find my book at local bookstores, online outlets, public libraries,  etc, etc. When I think about the question above, I wonder about the  advantage of getting 70% of sales that I generate through my own efforts  versus 17.5% of sales made at bookstores across the country. It's  something to think about. Many self-publishers can assume that their  friends, associates, and Twitter followers will buy their books, and of  course I would hope for the same—but what I *really* want to do is connect with many of the 15 million Americans who are caring for their loved-ones with Alzheimer's. I don't think I can settle for 800 or so sales.

As a radio interviewer who receives unsolicited interview requests,  press packages, and books from traditional publishers, I recognize the  amount of effort that they expend to sell books. Anyone planning to  self-publish should put some thought into what it takes to move product.  If self-publishers can put together teams that can match the services  of traditional publishers (editing, fact-checking, design and  typesetting, and printing), and can keep up a marketing campaign for  several months straight—then they should definitely take the plunge.


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> Yes, yes, yes going to an agent to get it to a publisher was the way it used to be.  That is no longer true, sorry.



Amazing how many authors haven't gotten that message yet. Almost as amazing as how many people who barely have their foot in the door of _any _kind of publishing are suddenly experts on _every _kind of publishing.

Self-publishing is a viable option for some. Not all. And as long as there are authors who are more interested in writing than publishing, there will be a need for trade publishers. They change and adapt and have done so for many, many years. I'm not worried about their demise.


----------



## garza

shadowwalker - I for one have not gotten the message yet, if the message is that agents are no longer useful. I continue to use an agent, though I had to change a few years ago when the agent I'd used for years died. I worked without an agent for a couple of years but I'm using one again. I'd rather spend my time writing than negotiating, and with two books in the mill now there's a lot of negotiating to be done.

I got my foot in the publishing door over half a century ago. Writing has been my life, and having my writing published has paid me quite well over the years. 

I am not an expert on _every_ kind of publishing. My experience has been limited to newspaper, magazine, book, and broadcast writing and publishing.


----------



## shadowwalker

garza said:


> shadowwalker - I for one have not gotten the message yet, if the message is that agents are no longer useful. .



A lot of people keep trying to pound that message into my head as well - I keep taking aspirin and ignoring them. :wink:


----------



## Loulou

Robert Donnell said:


> Yes, yes, yes going to an agent to get it to a publisher was the way it used to be.  That is no longer true, sorry.



It is mostly like that still.  I know, I recently got an agent, and am going for lunch with her and a big publisher interested in my novel at the end of June.  All of the publishers I looked at won't accept unsolicited manuscripts.  It's understandable.  They already have mountains of work to look at so at least if something is submitted to them by an agent it might be half good, has been read and selected by someone who knows their stuff.  God, if publishers looked at everything anyone sent - hell, likely 80% would be time-wasting drivel.

In my experience, anyone who dislikes editors/publishers so much has been rejected endlessly by them but not learned from it.  Not listened to any tips, or tired harder to perfect their work.  And so they are rejected more.  And so they dislike these seemingly evil people who continue to reject.

I admire anyone who self-publishes though.  It must be immensely hard work, and it's all on you.  All the editing and all the promotion.  The only thing that concerns me is that anyone can self-publish and so I'd be less inclined to read a self-published book unless I had a reliable recommendation or had read the writer's other work.  Like Sam W, if your books were my preferred genre, I'd certainly read yours because I know your good reputatation.


----------



## garza

Loulou - Best of luck...(oops, scratch that, the Little People may be listening) Let us know how the meeting goes. And, seriously, it's not a matter of luck. You would not have secured the help of an agent or the attention of a publisher if your work had not been considered of high quality. 

You are correct about unsolicited submissions. They go on the bottom of the pile and often get no more than a quick glance from a first reader, who may be late for lunch and hungry. Submissions from agents go on top and get a serious reading. 

There's another advantage of having an agent. My new agent successfully peddled the first draft of a book I've been working on for a couple of years, then remembered hearing about a certain media mogul looking for a ghost. Now I have two books, one that will be on a Spring list next year, and another that should be ready to ship sometime in 2014. My doctor says my health is not so good, but I tell him that if I die I'll be sued for breach of contract. Those two books are guarantees I'll live for at least two more years.  

I've never met an editor or publisher I didn't like, though I've had sharp disagreements with some. They have a job to do. Our job is to provide them with material they can use for our mutual benefit. If what we send them is not good enough, or not right for the market, that's our fault, not their fault.


----------



## Robert Donnell

So let’s see if I understand this right,  if a a writer wants to be paid for their work, that is low and crass, however if an Editor at a publishing house makes decisions based on perceived marketplace economics then that is super-understandable?  I see what is clearly a double standard here.

You know what else I see?  I see bookstores going out of business in droves.   Damn shame that.  So where will all of these publishing houses sell their’ books?  Amazon, I am already using Amazon to sell my books so I am ahead of the game. 

If you can get a good agent to take you and a good publishing house to push your books, then more power to you.  What will happen when that publishing house goes out of business?  Where will you be then?

Me I shall travel a different path.

I hold no animosity towards Editors and Publishers, I have been accused of it and those who rush to judge me have unjustifiable double standards.

Oh, good luck Loulou!


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> So let’s see if I understand this right,  if a a writer wants to be paid for their work, that is low and crass



Who the heck said that?


----------



## garza

There is no double standard. 

No one here has said that it's 'low and crass' for writers to want to be paid for their work. Of course we want to be paid. A person who depends on writing to pay the rent and buy the groceries certainly wants to be paid, but that person must recognise how the world works.

Those 'perceived marketplace economics' are very real. They are part of the world we live in. Those of us involved in the media, whether print or broadcast, must always be aware of market realities. Newspapers, radio, television, and books have all been a part of my life, and those market realities have guided much of what I've done over the past half century. I published my first newspaper article, complete with picture, in the Fall of 1954. The world has changed radically in some ways, but today, as then, when you ask a businessman to invest in your product, he has to believe that he can benefit from that investment. 

You cannot submit a manuscript to a publisher and say, 'I spent years writing this, and I deserve to be paid for my time and effort'. As we say in the South, 'That dog won't hunt'. If it's not well written, or if it does not meet the current demands of the market the publisher serves, then it's a no-go. 

Maybe, on the other hand, someone else spends seven weeks in the john tokin' and scratching out a book with a dull pencil on the backs of old cocktail napkins. (I had a friend in the sixties who wrote a series of hit country songs exactly that way.) Maybe what he scratches out is good stuff and is a marketplace bulls-eye. An agent has his copyist type it out (saying copy girl no longer allowed) and send it to a publisher, the publisher warms up his Heidelberg, and next Summer _Bathroom Dreams_ tops the NYT best seller list.

It happens. And it's not blind luck. It's putting the right material in the right hands at the right time. That takes skill and knowledge of the market. Is it fair? Absolutely. Doing good work, doing one's homework, and perseverance do pay off. Expecting to be rewarded because one believes he _should_ be rewarded seldom works past the age of two. 

When I was 14 I figured out that people would pay me to write, take pictures, and talk on the radio. As a result, I've never had a job but I've always lived quite well. The mainstay has been my writing. I've never lacked for a market, whether it's been local newspapers, wire services, U.S. and U.K. magazines, or book publishers. My best efforts go into what I write, and I believe it's good, but I don't expect someone to pay me unless _they_ believe it's good and unless _they_ believe what I write has a market.

Where will I go when all the publishing houses are gone? Well, if I live that long, I'll find a market somewhere. There will always be a market somewhere. But truth to tell, I'm really not looking past the next two years and finishing what I have on hand now. I 'retired' to Belize in 1995 comfortably well off. My lifestyle is pretty basic, so over the years as I have continued to write and sell what I write, my grandchildren's trust funds have grown substantially.  

You have already found an alternative market, so you should not be complaining about what editors and publishers at the big houses do or don't do. I've got mine made, and you say you are on the way to making yours, so all's well. 

To repeat my central idea:

When you ask a businessman to invest in your product, he has to believe that he can benefit from that investment. 

That should not be too difficult to understand.


----------



## movieman

garza said:


> When you ask a businessman to invest in your product, he has to believe that he can benefit from that investment.



But when you do ask them, remember that many of those businessmen rejected Harry Potter.

As for those saying publishers will vanish, most have more than enough backlist e-book rights that they could sack all the editors and others who deal with new writers and live off the income from those e-books for decades. If they actually want to keep releasing new books then they will have to change their contracts to be more writer-friendly or live with whatever books turn up in their slush pile from writers who aren't willing to self-publish.


----------



## garza

She was shopping the book herself. The publishers never heard of her, they weren't convinced, so they didn't buy. Many of those publishers may never have read what she sent. 

That's why writers have agents. When Chris Little saw value in what Rowling had written, he went to work, aggressively, and found a publisher. That makes my point about agents, and explains why I have one.

It's sad the way that relationship has ended.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> live with whatever books turn up in their slush pile from writers who aren't willing to self-publish.



Like they do now, you mean?


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> Like they do now, you mean?



No.

Until about two years ago anyone who wanted to make a living as a fiction writer had to send their novels to trade publishers, because the market for self-published fiction was practically non-existent. Today that's no longer the case, so less and less people are going to submit novels that way. Perhaps the best writers will still submit to trade publishers and the publishers will be happy because the bad ones are self-publishing, but I suspect it's more likely to be the opposite.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> No.
> 
> Until about two years ago anyone who wanted to make a living as a fiction writer had to send their novels to trade publishers, because the market for self-published fiction was practically non-existent. Today that's no longer the case, so less and less people are going to submit novels that way. Perhaps the best writers will still submit to trade publishers and the publishers will be happy because the bad ones are self-publishing, but I suspect it's more likely to be the opposite.



Well, first - rare is the fiction author who can make a living from their writing, period.

As to the bad writers going to trade publishers - does that really make any sense? Why would any agent worth their salt sign a bad writer? And why would any publishing house that wants to stay in business accept an ms from a bad writer? Trade publishing will be around for a long time because good writers _who have no interest whatsoever in self-publishing _will still want to be published. It's as simple as that. Those authors _may_ self-publish their backlists - but again, if they don't want to be publishers, if they would rather spend their time and energy writing instead of publishing, they will go with indie and trade publishers.


----------



## Loulou

movieman said:


> No.
> 
> Perhaps the best writers will still submit to trade publishers and the publishers will be happy because the bad ones are self-publishing, but I suspect it's more likely to be the opposite.



So the best writers will self-publish and the bad ones, you suspect, will still submit to trade publishers?  The very fact that self-publishing means that ANYONE can do it means these books are far more likely to be 'bad,' as in not edited properly, self-indulgent, and badly written.  The very fact that a book that has gone through an agent and then a publisher - and therefore been chosen over many, many others and been rigorously edited, proofread and worked on - means it is far more likely to be of decent quality.  In neither cases is this 100%.  Rare good books are self-published and rare bad books are traditionally published.  But books that have gone through a variety of systems are the cream that has risen to the top.  Self-published ones could be (again, only could be) any old milk.


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> Well, first - rare is the fiction author who can make a living from their writing, period.



The consensus seems to be that there are several thousand such writers in America alone. Only the most dedicated had any chance of making a living as a writer through self-published novels in print, so the point is moot; essentially anyone who wanted to make a living as a fiction writer had to submit to trade publishers and hope they weren't rejected because 'we love you story but have no idea how to market it'.



> As to the bad writers going to trade publishers - does that really make any sense? Why would any agent worth their salt sign a bad writer?



Who are they going to sign if the good writers are self-publishing because they get 4x the royalties? Or 30x the royalties if some recent complaints by romance writers are to be believed?



> And why would any publishing house that wants to stay in business accept an ms from a bad writer?



Who are they going to sign if the good writers are self-publishing because they get 4-30x the royalties?



> Trade publishing will be around for a long time because good writers _who have no interest whatsoever in self-publishing _will still want to be published.



That's fine, those writers can pay someone $500 to format and upload their books for them and then collect 70% royalties instead of 18%. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they'll easily cover that cost.

My basic point is this: until a couple of years ago, writers had no choice, they submitted to trade publishers, left the manuscript under their bed, or paid a lot of money to have copies printed and tried to convince book stores to stock them. Today any writer who invests a few hours in learning e-book formatting rules can self-publish instead, so they have other options. Trade publishers are used to considering what they can get from the writer, in future if they want to continue publishing they're going to have to start considering what they can do for the writer. That's a massive change.

Obviously trade publishers do offer valuable services to writers, such as widespread access to print markets, but for many of us they're outweighed by low royalties, long rights licensing terms and non-compete clauses.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Loulou,  while I see your point, in general but none of the real classics would get published today.  Therefore any system that weeds out the very best, is flawed.  Yes it weeds out the worst but that is through neglect not selection.

   Lets look at Hollywood I do not believe that there was a single new idea last year, the whole year it was all remakes and sequels.  You can not say that there was not one new idea from the myriad of writers shopping there scripts around but somewhere in the process the good stuff got tossed in the trash can, this is also what happens within big publishing houses.  We know this happens, we see million-sellers rejected by dozens of publishing houses.  The rejection does not prove that the book is garbage, it proves that the system is  broken.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> The consensus seems to be that there are several thousand such writers in America alone. Only the most dedicated had any chance of making a living as a writer through self-published novels in print, so the point is moot



The point isn't moot because it's still damn hard for any fiction writer to earn their living as a writer. And it doesn't matter how they get published or what format they use.



movieman said:


> Who are they going to sign if the good writers are self-publishing because they get 4x the royalties? Or 30x the royalties if some recent complaints by romance writers are to be believed?



The good writers who don't want to be publishers.



movieman said:


> Who are they going to sign if the good writers are self-publishing because they get 4-30x the royalties?



The good writers who don't want to be publishers.




movieman said:


> That's fine, those writers can pay someone $500 to format and upload their books for them and then collect 70% royalties instead of 18%. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they'll easily cover that cost.



If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky, they'll get a trade contract, not have to spend any money, get a decent advance, and continuing royalties.



movieman said:


> My basic point is this: until a couple of years ago, writers had no choice, they submitted to trade publishers, left the manuscript under their bed, or paid a lot of money to have copies printed and tried to convince book stores to stock them. Today any writer who invests a few hours in learning e-book formatting rules can self-publish instead, so they have other options. Trade publishers are used to considering what they can get from the writer, in future if they want to continue publishing they're going to have to start considering what they can do for the writer. That's a massive change.



Trade publishers also like to keep their writers happy so they'll keep writing and earning money for all parties. So I don't think there's that massive a change. But then I don't automatically assume trade publishers are the bad guys. Or even 'not nice' guys.



movieman said:


> Obviously trade publishers do offer valuable services to writers, such as widespread access to print markets, but for many of us they're outweighed by low royalties, long rights licensing terms and non-compete clauses.



Well, the contracts aren't forced down anyone's throat, and like any contract, they're negotiable.

Different writers have different goals, different wants/needs. For some writers, self-publishing is the route to go. For others it's not. I just don't see why trade publishers have to be painted in a bad light (or the authors who chose to go that route) in order to justify self-publishing. As I said elsewhere (possibly here, who knows), show me an author who can state why s/he's self-publishing without trashing trade publishing, and I'll show you a writer who may be worth reading.


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> we see million-sellers rejected by dozens of publishing houses.  The rejection does not prove that the book is garbage, it proves that the system is  broken.



Also see million-sellers published by the publishing houses. So I guess it's not quite _that_ broken...


----------



## Terry D

Robert Donnell said:


> Loulou,  while I see your point, in general but none of the real classics would get published today.  Therefore any system that weeds out the very best, is flawed.  Yes it weeds out the worst but that is through neglect not selection.



That's not true at all.  Most of the 'real classics' went through the editing and publishing process.  Dickens, Poe, Kafka, Hemingway, Vonnegut, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, they all went through editors and publishers.  Show me a book that was self-published in the last five years which you think is going to be a classic.  It sure isn't _50 Shades of Grey_, or _Eragon_.





> We know this happens, we see million-sellers rejected by dozens of publishing houses. The rejection does not prove that the book is garbage, it proves that the system is broken.



All it proves is that people have different opinions of what will sell.  To me it says the system works.  The author, or their agent, was persistent enough to find the right fit.  Finding a good book that has been published through traditional means is far. far easier, than finding a good self-published book.  It's like looking for a diamond in a jewelry store instead of trying to find one in a dumpster.  Occasionally you might find a gem lost among the trash, but you'll find one quicker among the other gems.

Just for the sake of full disclosure, I self published the book you see in my avatar.


----------



## garza

Those royalties may be lower than you would like, but they are dependable and can continue quite a while, if the product is good. Once the publisher assumes responsibility, you as a writer are free to do what you do best - write. You do not have to pay anyone anything. Not even your agent. He makes nothing until the money starts to flow, and the money stream flows toward you, not away. 

Self-publishing is much easier, and certainly more respectable, than in years gone by. What the writer thinking of self publishing must consider is whether he will be effective as a publisher. Can he get himself onto the radio talk shows, arrange the tv interviews, convince reviewers at major periodicals to read and comment on his book? Will a Youtube video promoted on Facebook lead to significant sales? And while all theses details of promotion are taking up the writer/publisher's time, what happens to the next book? Will it ever be written? 

Of course the self-published author can hang his book out there and get on with the next project, but will that generate a living wage? I don't know. All of my experience has been with various kinds of publishers, media houses, governments, non-governmental organisations, and such, all of whom paid me to write something. In other words, straight along traditional ways of publishing.


----------



## patskywriter

garza said:


> … What the writer thinking of self publishing must consider is whether he will be effective as a publisher. Can he get himself onto the radio talk shows, arrange the tv interviews, convince reviewers at major periodicals to read and comment on his book? Will a Youtube video promoted on Facebook lead to significant sales? And while all theses details of promotion are taking up the writer/publisher's time, what happens to the next book? Will it ever be written? …



This is precisely why I pointed out that I receive *unsolicited* press releases, presskits, and books (in an earlier post). I was trying to point out the wide reach of traditional publishers. Here I am, a publisher of a locally focused newspaper and host of a half-hour show on a local NPR/college station. My newspaper has nowhere near the circulation of the big daily paper, and my show is on the local jazz station and not on the larger, richer, all-news NPR station in the city next door. I admit that I sometimes get overlooked during local marketing campaigns. Now, consider the book "The Encyclopedia of North Carolina." I was really flattered to have been approached by the publisher of that book, because I knew that it was probably sending materials and making phone calls to hundreds of newspaper editors and radio stations in *all* *100 counties* in North Carolina! And we're talking about a book with limited appeal (geographically speaking). Imagine what publishers are doing for books with national and international audiences. Can the average self-publisher really replicate this level of marketing? I certainly plan to try when my book comes out. As a member of the media, I know quite a few publishers and radio hosts in my area, Chicago (my hometown), and Georgia. But I know darn well that it would be nearly impossible to have the time to research and contact media outlets around the country while trying to work, write, and do all of my "family stuff" at the same time!

On the other hand, when I finish my next project, which has a hyperlocal focus dealing with the history of my town, I will go the self-publishing route. I'm sure that I'll be able to move product easily with the help of my many local contacts. In fact, I'm considering moving this project ahead of my larger nonfiction book. It's possible that the popularity of a self-published book might tip the scales in my favor when seeking representation down the road. Maybe. I hope.


----------



## Baron

I have to be candid.  The OP and followup posts convince me not to buy this book.  I'm certain I would be wasting my money.  Why do I say that?  Such a negative attitude to the traditional publishing industry means either that the author has had his book rejected and can't learn from that or that he really has insufficient confidence in the work to attempt the traditional route.  When it comes to rejections, my experience is that those who write the most unpublishable works are those who shout loudest about how awful the publishing industry is and are quick to jump on the bandwagon to prophesy its demise.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Rolleyes.


----------



## Baron

*facepalm*

When self publishing the onus is on the writer to promote his work, that's a no-brainer.  To that end it's important to consider the image you're projecting.  If it's being suggested that your attitude in this thread might discourage people from buying your book then you really want to think about that.  With a traditional publisher there would be a marketing expert to handle this side of things to ensure that the right message goes out.  You don't have that benefit when you're out there on your own.


----------



## Loulou

Robert Donnell said:


> Do I have animosity towards Publishers and Editors?  I would if I thought of them at all.  I don't spend much time thinking of buggy whip makers or do-do birds either.



It's quite curious then how much effort you're putting into disputing their worth.


----------



## movieman

shadowwalker said:


> The point isn't moot because it's still damn hard for any fiction writer to earn their living as a writer. And it doesn't matter how they get published or what format they use.



Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract. Most of those writers couldn't get a trade publishing contract because their books were bad and hence they still won't make much, but the top 10% or so can probably make a decent living now with 70% royalties on self-published books vs pushing the manuscript under their bed before.



> The good writers who don't want to be publishers.



Sure, they may prefer to see their publisher make three or more times as much money as they do on each e-book they sell, but we'll have to wait and see. My guess is that a good writer is probably smart enough to realise that unless they're the next Stephen King, they're better off selling their books themselves or going with a new publisher like Amazon.



> If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky, they'll get a trade contract, not have to spend any money, get a decent advance, and continuing royalties.



So as a new writer they'll get around $5,000 paid over several years. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they could make more than that self-publishing.



> Well, the contracts aren't forced down anyone's throat, and like any contract, they're negotiable.



What do you think of the odds of Big Publisher X saying 'yes' when I say 'I want a contract like Stephen King where I only license the rights to you for a few years and I get a 50% share of the profits'?

That just isn't going to happen for a new writer unless they have a very popular book that everyone wants to buy. If it's just another mid-list book, the publisher would laugh them out of the office... there are plenty more writers waiting to replace them.



> I just don't see why trade publishers have to be painted in a bad light (or the authors who chose to go that route) in order to justify self-publishing. As I said elsewhere (possibly here, who knows), show me an author who can state why s/he's self-publishing without trashing trade publishing, and I'll show you a writer who may be worth reading.



Few people would self-publish if trade publishers offered them a good deal. Stephen King has no need to self-publish because he's already getting good terms from his publisher. Joe Newbie who's offered a $5,000 advance on 10% royalties and will have to sign away his rights in perpetuity and agree to a non-compete clause and probably worse... isn't in the same position.

This is why many of the writers who became popular by self-publishing e-books are now published by Amazon, because Amazon offered them a much better deal than the existing trade publishers; good royalties, no oppressive contract clauses and excellent marketing direct to the people who'd want to buy their books. I can't see how trade publishers can compete with that without radically changing their practices.


----------



## Kyle R

Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 | Books | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Terry D

Baron said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> When self publishing the onus is on the writer to promote his work, that's a no-brainer.  To that end it's important to consider the image you're projecting.  If it's being suggested that your attitude in this thread might discourage people from buying your book then you really want to think about that.  With a traditional publisher there would be a marketing expert to handle this side of things to ensure that the right message goes out.  You don't have that benefit when you're out there on your own.



To be honest, what will prevent people from buying the book is the "Look Inside" experience for _Shattered Worlds_ on Amazon.  I went to the site and read portions of several chapters.  I have avoided commenting on what I found there because I didn't want to embarrass the OP.  I have much respect for anyone who has the fortitude to stick with a novel writing project to completion, that is a daunting task.  But the OP's attitude in this thread indicates to me that he feels his book is the equal to works published through traditional means.  That is not the case.  The formatting of the book is amateurish, with paragraphs being divided by blank lines -- sometimes one, other times two -- and the font seems overly large.  The author fails to separate the dialogue from multiple speakers into individual paragraphs making conversations confusing, and there are numerous grammatical errors.  The overall narrative flow is hectic, jerky, and uncomfortable to read.

Of course this is all just my opinion, but this book is precisely the sort of work which has given self-publishing a bad reputation.


----------



## Sam

movieman said:


> Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract. Most of those writers couldn't get a trade publishing contract because their books were bad and hence they still won't make much, but the top 10% or so can probably make a decent living now with 70% royalties on self-published books vs pushing the manuscript under their bed before.



That 70% you refer to is a base-rating. It doesn't take into account the minimum 40% royalty of all sales that bookstores will request. In some of my dealings, I've even been quoted 50% of every sale. So unless you're content to sell your book out of the boot of your car, that 70% is wishful thinking. 

Let me put it into figures for you. A standard novel-sized book with 400 pages will cost you approximately £7.50 to print with Lulu. Most trade paperbacks are sold at between £8.99 to £10.99. Let's say you retail yours at £9.99 for handiness' sake. Before any increments are taken into account, you stand to make a profit of £2.50 per book. Seems quite a lot to begin with. However, if you consider that the bookstore is going to take at least £4.00 of that, you realise your first major problem. Your profit vanishes. Moreover, it's actually costing you money to have your books sold in bookstores. 

You could always charge £11.99 a novel, but it's asking a lot for people to buy a traditional paperback for that kind of money -- never mind a self-published novel.


----------



## Sam

Terry D said:


> To be honest, what will prevent people from buying the book is the "Look Inside" experience for _Shattered Worlds_ on Amazon.  I went to the site and read portions of several chapters.  I have avoided commenting on what I found there because I didn't want to embarrass the OP.  I have much respect for anyone who has the fortitude to stick with a novel writing project to completion, that is a daunting task.  But the OP's attitude in this thread indicates to me that he feels his book is the equal to works published through traditional means.  That is not the case.  The formatting of the book is amateurish, with paragraphs being divided by blank lines -- sometimes one, other times two -- and the font seems overly large.  The author fails to separate the dialogue from multiple speakers into individual paragraphs making conversations confusing, and there are numerous grammatical errors.  The overall narrative flow is hectic, jerky, and uncomfortable to read.
> 
> Of course this is all just my opinion, but this book is precisely the sort of work which has given self-publishing a bad reputation.



I'm never one for kicking a man when he is down, but the first paragraph of the work tells me all I need to know. 



> No body knows what the hell happened



'Nobody' is all one word. To be fair, that isn't even a difficult form to get right. I've noticed several other mistakes too: run-on sentences, comma splices, misspellings. I admire the OP's will to finish the novel and get it out there, but some of it reads as though it never saw an edit -- even from the author himself. I know grammar and syntax aren't more important than the story. However, when you self-publish it's generally best that the work has as little mistakes as possible. It makes it look more professional. 

If the OP plans to sell 800 copies of this, it seems to me that he won't be selling 800 of the sequel. You can't consistently get away with that kind of sloppiness.


----------



## shadowwalker

movieman said:


> Except 90% of writers never made any money because they couldn't get a trade publishing contract



Most published authors cannot live off their writing, regardless of how they got published. Obviously if they never publish they aren't going to be able to live off their writing either, but I didn't realize I had to spell that out.




movieman said:


> My guess is that a good writer is probably smart enough to realise that unless they're the next Stephen King, they're better off selling their books themselves or going with a new publisher like Amazon.



So if a writer decides to go with trade publishers they're stupid, huh? Or maybe they know that most of what self-publishers claim about sales is hogwash. How's that for a broad generalization?



movieman said:


> So as a new writer they'll get around $5,000 paid over several years. If the book is good and they're even remotely lucky they could make more than that self-publishing.



Not over several years - possibly 18-24 months. On signing, when the manuscript is finished and accepted, and on publication. And of course, the smaller the advance, the sooner royalties kick in. As to whether or not it would equal self-publishing income, well, who knows? It's not as if _anyone _is publishing their tax returns as proof.



movieman said:


> What do you think of the odds of Big Publisher X saying 'yes' when I say 'I want a contract like Stephen King where I only license the rights to you for a few years and I get a 50% share of the profits'?



About the same as a self-publisher being the next Amanda Hocking.



movieman said:


> Few people would self-publish if trade publishers offered them a good deal. Stephen King has no need to self-publish because he's already getting good terms from his publisher. Joe Newbie who's offered a $5,000 advance on 10% royalties and will have to sign away his rights in perpetuity and agree to a non-compete clause and probably worse... isn't in the same position.



If Joe Newbie doesn't like the contract, he can negotiate or go elsewhere - if one publisher wants him, others will too. And let's face it - not getting a good deal (versus a ridiculously unrealistic deal) is not why most writers turn to self-publishing.



movieman said:


> This is why many of the writers who became popular by self-publishing e-books are now published by Amazon



Ahem... Amazon _is _a trade publisher. And _again _nobody forces writers to sign oppressive contracts. And if the book is good, any publisher will want to make a fair deal with the author because there are going to be more books coming down the road from them. I mean, unless you figure trade publishers are both greedy and dumb...


----------



## Baron

> If Joe Newbie doesn't like the contract, he can negotiate or go elsewhere - if one publisher wants him, others will too. And let's face it - not getting a good deal (versus a ridiculously unrealistic deal) is not why most writers turn to self-publishing.



Not getting a good deal is why most sensible writers get an agent.


----------



## patskywriter

I decided to take a peek at "Shattered Worlds," too. Wow. Even if it might be considered unfair to criticize the level of writing, there's no mistaking that the table of contents is a mess. There's Chapter One, then Chapter 2, etc … and the chapter numbers scare me. You'll see Chapter Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Twenty Two, Twenty Three, Twenty-Four—eek! What a mess. Again, I'll be nice and not say anything about the actual writing, except that I should have read a sample at amazon.com much earlier. In the future, I won't waste time going back and forth with someone who's clearly not ready for the big time. There is absolutely no way that a writer at this level can be taken seriously with the arrogant attitude that he has. Encouragement could be called for in this case, but not when the writer is too delusional to accept it. I'm done here. Yikes!


----------



## Baron

I think the writer might benefit from withdrawing the work from publication and going through it chapter by chapter in the workshop.  That way he may get it polished enough to be presentable.


----------



## Kyle R

I've purchased a few self-published novels through Amazon, just out of curiosity. Overall I've been disappointed by poor editing quality. I don't consider that a representation of all self-published works, as I'm often disappointed by traditionally-published novels, as well. However, in a traditionally published work, it is most often the prose or the plotline that disappoints me, while the technical aspects are generally flawless. In many self-published works, the writing suffers on both ends.

For anyone self-publishing I would recommend paying for a professional edit, or at the very least, going through every single line with a red pen on your own. 

In my opinion, a quality published work should contain no mistakes anywhere, not a single one. 

When I see writing with poor grammar, misplaced punctuation, or even the rare misspelled word, it communicates, to me, a lack of care by the author. That may not be the case, he (or his editor) may simply have missed the mistakes, but the errors diminish the reader experience.


----------



## Baron

KyleColorado said:


> I've purchased a few self-published novels through Amazon, just out of curiosity. Overall I've been disappointed by poor editing quality. I don't consider that a representation of all self-published works, as I'm often disappointed by traditionally-published novels, as well. However, in a traditionally published work, it is most often the prose or the plotline that disappoints me, while the technical aspects are generally flawless. In many self-published works, the writing suffers on both ends.
> 
> For anyone self-publishing I would recommend paying for a professional edit, or at the very least, going through every single line with a red pen on your own.
> 
> In my opinion, a quality published work should contain no mistakes anywhere, not a single one.
> 
> When I see writing with poor grammar, misplaced punctuation, or even the rare misspelled word, it communicates, to me, a lack of care by the author. That may not be the case, he (or his editor) may simply have missed the mistakes, but the errors diminish the reader experience.


It isn't unusual for books to appear with typographic errors, even from the mainstream publishers.  This is happening more these days as spending cuts mean that the books aren't subjected to the same level of editing.  At one time a book may pass through five stages in the editing process before it went to press.  These days there are only one or two edits before publishing and things get missed.  Errors have always happened but more so these days when costs determine quality.


----------



## Sam

KyleColorado said:


> I've purchased a few self-published novels through Amazon, just out of curiosity. Overall I've been disappointed by poor editing quality. I don't consider that a representation of all self-published works, as I'm often disappointed by traditionally-published novels, as well. However, in a traditionally published work, it is most often the prose or the plotline that disappoints me, while the technical aspects are generally flawless. In many self-published works, the writing suffers on both ends.
> 
> For anyone self-publishing I would recommend paying for a professional edit, or at the very least, going through every single line with a red pen on your own.
> 
> In my opinion, a quality published work should contain no mistakes anywhere, not a single one.
> 
> When I see writing with poor grammar, misplaced punctuation, or even the rare misspelled word, it communicates, to me, a lack of care by the author. That may not be the case, he (or his editor) may simply have missed the mistakes, but the errors diminish the reader experience.



As Baron said, there are traditionally published novels with all of the above present. I'm not sure whether this is a reflection of the belief that readers won't care, or the fact that an editor just couldn't be bothered. The third, and more valid, reason is that a few slipped under the radar. It can happen easily. 

I don't think it's fair to tar all self-published works with the one brush. There are more diamonds in the rough than you might think. Of course, when one has to wade through pages and pages of poorly edited novels, these great works are less likely to be found. There are some really good writers out there who self-publish because their work doesn't conform to a niche market. Dystopian sci-fi, for example, is a genre I've seen many publishing houses practically ban. 

Professional editors are useful but not essential. With enough practice and reading, spelling and grammar should become second nature.


----------



## Robert Donnell

Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.


----------



## Jon M

Robert Donnell said:


> Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.


Haha. 

Holy **** that is awesome.


----------



## Baron

Robert Donnell said:


> Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.



:roll:  ](*,)  :deadhorse:

Every picture tells a story.


----------



## Fin

Oh goodness.


----------



## garza

Not edited at all? And you expect people to read it?

Most self-published writers do as good a job of editing as they can. Others hire an editor. You are the first person I've heard of who has self-published without editing your work or having it edited by someone. 

Mr Speaker I rise to move the adjournment.


----------



## Sunny

KyleColorado said:


> In my opinion, a quality published work should contain no mistakes anywhere, not a single one.
> 
> When I see writing with poor grammar, misplaced punctuation, or even the rare misspelled word, it communicates, to me, a lack of care by the author. That may not be the case, he (or his editor) may simply have missed the mistakes, but the errors diminish the reader experience.



I read a lot of blogs and websites of editors and such. This is one thing that many of them talk about. They say that the books can and are edited to perfection, but sometimes with the printing software, and the computer glitches that sometimes happen, that we'll see mistakes in the book that weren't there when it went to press. 

I just thought I'd tell you that I'd read the same thing in a few places from more than one editor. 

I guess it could be true. I mean, if I'm reading a long and can point out the mistakes, especially the simple ones, it only makes sense that what they said would be true. Right? I mean, this is what they do. Plus they have more than one person going over it, so if it's missed, I can see it being software or whatever and not the actual author and poor editing. 

Computers can't live up to the brilliance of our eyes! Not yet... Lol. As if. ;0)


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.



You're kidding, right? You must be.


----------



## MatthewJ.Anderson

"I'd say the biggest difference is that I don't have to pay out of pocket to get rejected."

Well said, Tiamat10. I'd rather just admire my own work, show it to friends, and have some fun with it, than risk myself, financially, only to realize, "Hey, this publishing, marketing, selling racket is a wee bit more complex than I thought it was...." The fact of the matter is that publishers/editors are tremendously important to the broad dissemination of your work. Of course, that's not say people can't make it in the self-publishing world. The people that do "make it" either have the goods and get lucky, strike in big, or are diligent workers who are savvy enough to find their niche.

MJA


----------



## MatthewJ.Anderson

I believe the OP meant that the author's original, revised manuscript is left untouched by the editor/publishing house. But! I feel your frustration, Shadowwalker.


----------



## Robert Donnell

To use a example from Hollywood a lot of the very best stuff in most movies ends up on the cutting room floor.  I strongly suspect the same happens with book editing.  

I had an editor wonder why a particular character was using “Southern Diction” in a piece about, gosh, the South.  She a native New Englander assumed that everyone spoke with a “Southie” (South Boston) accent outside Boston.  Yes I have had editors in the past, I had not even thought about her in years.

As for wheather I am serious or not, can you think out of the box?  I can.

Well said Matthew!


----------



## squidtender

Robert Donnell said:


> To use a example from Hollywood a lot of the very best stuff in most movies ends up on the cutting room floor.  I strongly suspect the same happens with book editing.



I guess you could get all the corporate homogenized editing done to your book, get it published, then when it gets popular release the directors cut and let the fans decide which is better


----------



## justbishop

Robert Donnell said:


> Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.



o.0

Wowwwwww.

(Yep, that required multiple w's.)


----------



## shadowwalker

Robert Donnell said:


> As for wheather I am serious or not, can you think out of the box?  I can.



There's a difference between thinking out of the box and not even being in the same room with it. Every book, regardless of how one publishes, should be edited at the minimum for grammar and spelling, formatted (which you said was so easy) so that spacing is uniform and the table of contents is at least in order, that numbers are written out or at least consistent... Writing is communicating. If readers have to sweat through mistake after mistake just to get to the words, communication is effectively lost. Lost communication = Fail.


----------



## Tiamat

Robert Donnell said:


> Obviously a self published work is not edited at all, therein lies the charm, it is a pure work of art not corrupted by corporate homogenized editing.


Well, here's my two cents on this little tidbit:

If you're not willing to put forth the time and effort required to make your book as free of flaws as you can make it, why should any reader put forth the time and effort it's going to take to read it?  This is the kind of cocky, elitist writing attitude that separates the hopefuls from the professionals.  And having perused a few pages of your novel, I'm going to second what Baron said.  I'd strongly suggest posting in the workshop and receiving constructive, helpful criticism that will allow you not only to better your craft but to stand out among your peers in the self-publishing world.  Not to mention sell more books.


----------



## Kyle R

Robert Donnell said:


> To use a example from Hollywood a lot of the very best stuff in most movies ends up on the cutting room floor. I strongly suspect the same happens with book editing.



In most movies? Hmm.. I'm not sure if that is true at all.

Most movies have a "deleted scenes" feature in the home DVD's and I always watch them. Often they are cut with good reason, and after seeing the theatrical version you can see why they were cut.

There are, of course, times where a deleted scene is exceptional, though simply didn't fit well with the narrative or whatever other reason. But, at least from my viewing experience, those are rare exceptions.

When I watch the extended director's cut of some films, they often seem amateurish. The scenes linger on after the emotional impact has peaked, the dialogue is extraneous, random side-roads are explored at leisure.

Pick up the Director's Cut of the film "Troy" and you'll see what I mean. 

Sometimes you have to cut your "darlings", your well-written scenes that don't play well with others, as your novel is a sum of it's parts. Sometimes benching a star offensive player is necessary when you need your best defensive players on the court.


----------



## Chaeronia

Banned, eh?

Boy, that escalated quickly.


----------



## Sam

Moderation isn't discussed in public. There's nothing else to say on that subject, so let's get back on topic.


----------



## starseed

I checked out the book written by the OP as well and I see what others are talking about. Something that crossed my mind was the possibility that he wrote two chapters of the same number on purpose? It could possibly be a style thing, you know, two chapter seventeens that take place during the same time period from the perspectives of two different characters, something like that? I was going to ask if this was done for such reasons but he's banned now so I guess I cannot.

I agree with all the perspectives here (I edit myself into the ground even on my FIRST drafts) but also feel it is a person's right to write however they choose and attempt to sell it however they choose as well. Wishing the OP luck with his book.


----------



## Baron

starseed said:


> I checked out the book written by the OP as well and I see what others are talking about. Something that crossed my mind was the possibility that he wrote two chapters of the same number on purpose? It could possibly be a style thing, you know, two chapter seventeens that take place during the same time period from the perspectives of two different characters, something like that? I was going to ask if this was done for such reasons but he's banned now so I guess I cannot.
> 
> I agree with all the perspectives here (I edit myself into the ground even on my FIRST drafts) but also feel it is a person's right to write however they choose and attempt to sell it however they choose as well. Wishing the OP luck with his book.


It is his right to publish how he pleases but the reality is that books such as this create an image of self publsihing which damages those who take the time to produce a quality work.


----------



## shadowwalker

The thing about style (for me anyway) is that it needs to appear deliberate/consistent, and not, as this did, as carelessness. I started reading the sample, and frankly I was intrigued by the storyline - but the lack of proper punctuation and wandering in the narrative made it difficult to read. And frankly, the storyline didn't intrigue me enough to try and ignore those problems. Someone who is a good storyteller can be forgiven a few errors such as this, but not constant ones. It's really too bad that more attention wasn't paid to the writing, and less to the "I'm an artiste - the hell with standards!". And, as Baron stated, this is the kind of thing that reflects poorly on all self-publishers and why that darn stigma stubbornly remains.


----------



## starseed

It does happen with traditionally published works as well, but it's like you said, often times it is deliberate. For example "Rule of the Bone" (by Russel Banks). He uses a lot of run on sentences and bad punctuation and doesn't use quotation marks for any of the dialogue. In the beginning of the novel it annoyed me and I almost gave up but as I went on I started to see that he wrote this way because the story is first person from the perspective of a fifteen year old runaway, and the way it was written really does make you feel like you are in the head of the kid. I'm not sure if he styled it this way for this purpose but I would assume so. I got used to the voice and this ended up being one of my favorite novels. 

You can tell when someone has spent a great deal of time on their novel and put a lot of thought into it, no matter what the style.


----------



## shadowwalker

starseed said:


> You can tell when someone has spent a great deal of time on their novel and put a lot of thought into it, no matter what the style.



True. And in this case, it was apparent that not enough time and thought had been put into it. Which is really too bad, because, as I said, the storyline had promise.


----------

