Motoko Rich had a story in the NY Times today about the self-publishing industry. As you all know from a previous post, we’ve got at least one regular here who is a self-published author, along with one who is planning on becoming a self-published author. I think it’s awesome that technology is allowing people to self-publish without prohibitive costs. The world is becoming more democratic.
The story in short goes like this: traditional book publishers, which front money and time to promote books, are hurting badly. Self-publishing companies, on the other hand, which usually charge authors to get started, are flourishing. They seem to be the one bright spot in the entire publishing world.
For me personally, I still like the idea of the traditional publishing house. Not only do you get a professional editor whom you don’t have to pay, but traditional publishing houses can promote books beyond the abilities of most authors who work alone:
Of course, authors who take [the self-publishing] route also give up a lot. Not only do they receive no advance payments, but they also often must pay out of their own pockets before seeing a dime. They do not have the benefit of the marketing acumen of traditional publishers, and have diminished access to the vast bookstore distribution pipeline that big publishers can provide.
Self-publishing is good for niche audiences, and if you’re targeting a niche audience, self-publishing might even be better than traditional channels. Activist writers, however, can’t be niche writers because great activists, whether they are writers are not, need to affect many people. And to do that, unfortunately, requires substantial marketing and promotional know-how through channels like bookstores and tours.
Anyway, it’s possible to be very successful through self-publishing. At the end of the article, they mention one woman who used self-publishing to find an agent. After selling her book to a traditional publisher, her book debuted on the NY Times bestseller list.
Related posts:
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
8(
There are certainly pros and cons to both, and it depends on what you as the writer want. To me, what I value as a writer is this:
Am I getting my message across to my readers intact?
Self-publishing is great for those who have expertise in a niche skill or a narrow domain of knowledge that is highly sought after. Those are 2 keys: you have to be damn good at something that people give a crap about.
Everything about self-publishing is direct: you submit and present material to your audience directly. Payment is direct. Whether you have a lot of sales or few sales, it directly correlates with your effort and whether or not you make intelligent, intuitive and pragmatic decisions. You are solely accountable.
It is not the publisher who is the judge of your material, it is the harsh market that judges whether you sink or swim.
now if you can get published traditionally, by all means do it. But if all doors are closed to you, then make your own.
Good points about intact messages. I’ve heard that it’s not uncommon for books to be totally different after the editing process.
Speaking of niche markets, I think it’s awesome that self-publishing is opening up these niches. While it’s easy to get books on lots of topics, the field is going to be even more diverse in the future.
Pingback: War With Pigeons by Tae Kim (Review) | bigWOWO