Self-Publishing

[rowyn]

J. A. Konrath: "You Should Self-Publish"

In the last few years, I've read a lot about self-publishing. I've watched some very hard-working friends enjoy a modest degree of success self-publishing. I definitely believe that there are situations where self-publishing makes sense.

Even so, this essay struck me. Because it's the first time that I've seen someone who

a) Was traditionally published and moderately successful in print
b) Decided to switch to self-publishing
c) Now believes that not only was self-publishing the right decision for him, but that it is the best option for basically all authors, whether they have been traditionally published before or not.

And that last made me go "Whoa". Here is an author contending that traditional publishers are offering authors virtually nothing of value beyond editing and cover-painting services that an author can contract elsewhere. That the whole "cachet of having been vetted by the elite of the industry" is a myth. That e-book readers do not care whether your book is self-published or traditionally published. That traditional publishers are not really doing anything to promote sales beyond placing your book in stores, which you can do yourself in the e-book world.

And that is just ... whoa. A big claim to make.

I do not know if I am convinced; Konraths's numbers, especially the assumption that sales will remain level over any given period of time, struck me as overly simplistic. It also seems to me that publishers at least have the potential to add considerable value to the process, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Still, food for thought.

Comments

[rowyn]

I'll note that in later entries, Konrath lists and interviews a number of authors who did not start with traditional publishers, which I think is the main reason he regards it in error to assume his success is due to his background in traditional publishing.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I think it would be excellent if he would be correct. But—*puts on Business Manager hat*—I think, looking at how things are working out for me, that it's not all roses.

The thing I keep in mind is that a lot of traditionally published authors aren't making a living either. They're making grocery money or part-time money. Measuring that way, self-publishing can easily be just as successful. Where I'm not sure it can measure up yet is whether it allows for the outliers, like bestsellers.

[rowyn]

The thing I keep in mind is that a lot of traditionally published authors aren't making a living either.

That's what I was thinking, that the question isn't "will self-publishing make you rich?" but "would traditional publishing actually be *any better*?" Obviously, there are way more self-published authors making virtually nothing than ones selling thousands of books. But that doesn't answer whether the authors that aren't selling self-published would be able to get a traditional publisher, or if their books would sell if they did. Or if the authors who are selling thousands of copies would sell tens of thousands through a publishing house. I'm not even sure how you'd answer that question; maybe by finding a large random sample of authors who'd taken both routes, in both orders.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think that random sample is going to happen. All you can really do is decide to take the plunge or not. I think keeping your options open in every direction, and considering what each option can do for you from a marketing perspective (and what it will cost you to try it) is the only way to go at this point. Unfortunately, that's time-consuming and requires both the knowledge and the willingness to take some business sensibility and apply it to what is still a creative process.

Writers are still artists. The temperament is not often interested in nuts and bolts.