American literary agent Rachelle Gardner wrote a blog post a couple of days ago, Will Self-Pubbing Hurt My Chances? And the answer she gives is, NO. Self-publishing probably will not hurt your chances of traditional publishing. This is a 180 degree switch from just a few years ago! There was a stigma attached to self publishing, and authors who went that route risked alienating those in traditional publishing. The self-pub author was perceived as someone who was impatient; they [sic] were someone who was unable to pass muster with agents and editors; they put out cheap-looking books that were poorly written and badly edited. But today it’s different.
This is good news for authors unable to attract an agent, who feel they need 'permission' to self-publish. The industry is beginning to give its blessing to those pesky indies it was once so scathing about. Perhaps more... one commenter wrote, "I’m worried that publishers will start to expect an author coming to them to already have readership and sales numbers in hand."
What I want to say in big letters is, YOU DON'T NEED PERMISSION. Just a good book, because validation can only be given by readers: not agents, editors or marketing departments.
Konrad Lorenz tells a story about the geese he kept. Each morning he would open the gate to the small compound where they spent the night to allow them to roam freely during the day. One morning, he saw from his window he'd forgotten to close the gate the night before, so he didn't need to open it. A while later, he noticed the geese were still in their compound, making dissatisfied noises. The gate was open, but they would not go through it until he went over, shut it, and opened it again with a flourish. This ceremony over, they went off to forage.
Don't be like those geese. Agents and publishers are losing some of their power. They are becoming aware of this, and so should we be.
Lexi, great comment. I have enormous respect for Rachelle's blogposts normally. But in this instance I felt she was a little condescending. This was also followed by a post on what a publishing house's marketing department does for its authors. I couldn't let that one go and wrote a post on it myself.
ReplyDeleteI suspect agents are trying to come to terms with the whole rise and rise of the self-publisher and this is merely one way of making an effort to adjust. In some respects she's leading the way for those of her ilk. But I shall know that she and others like her have really adjusted when they pay credit to those self-publishers who deserve to be mentioned. (I'm not talking about Amanda Hocking, John Locke et al) Methinks that time is rapidly approaching simply because the times are changing so rapidly!
It was Rachelle Gardners's post justifying the sloth-like pace of publishing that had me hopping up and down with indignation.
ReplyDeleteWe're all busy, we all multi-task, everything takes time, but only businesses with monopolies (like the publishers' monopoly of distribution) can get away with being as slow as suits them, not their customers.
Must blog on this...
Excellent! Love the story about the geese--so appropriate.
ReplyDeleteAwwww the geese sound adorable! LOL!!
ReplyDeleteYay for giving yourselves permission to self-publish in confidence and with confidence!! Go for it you self-pubbed authors to be!!! Take care
x
Hi Jan! The story is from Lorenz's book, King Solomon's Ring, worth reading if you haven't.
ReplyDeleteKitty, I've now given myself permission to publish Replica the paperback, if you still haven't invested in a Kindle...
Wonderful post, Lexi.
ReplyDeleteLike Prue I have great respect for many of Rachelle's posts, and happily give her credit where due, but at the end of the day she is vested in the old model.
Prue's post on Big Six marketing is a masterclass in showing the Emperor has no clothes.
Look forward to your taking apart the myth that publishing need take forever.
Publishers, agents, editors... They still think they are indispensable. They're wrong. The only indispensables are writers and readers.
Great post Lexi. It's amazing to see how the business has changed in just a couple of years. Self-pubbing can really open doors for authors who succeed. The quote about self-pubbed books being poorly written and badly edited is ironic, because we've all seen those qualities in legacy books from time to time.
ReplyDeleteWe all knew that good writing was highly subjective and editorial and linguistic skills have little to do with commercial success... didn't we? It seems some people are just getting clued in.
Was it you, Mark, who commented somewhere that agents continually tell us that to be taken on, our books need to be amazing and polished until they shine - so then why would they require an editor?
ReplyDeleteJames, it is indeed fascinating to watch all the changes. No point quoting any figures from three years ago, as one agent did last week. Totally different era.
Am glad you didn't wait for permission, Lexi. Really enjoyed both of your books - although probably "Replica" more so as I found it really haunting and it stayed with me for days.
ReplyDeleteI think publishers *should* be glad to work with good tried-and-tested indie authors because they have already proven that they have got what it takes in all areas of the business - the writing, editing, proof-reading and marketing, otherwise they wouldn't have achieved any level of success.
Continued from previous...
ReplyDeleteProblem (or question) number two is the whole question of the author as self-publicist, which I go into in the post above, and also here.
I'm full of admiration for someone who can write well and is happy to promote themselves - present company included - but if (as so often) the two qualities are antithetical, give me the good writing every time.
For the record:
* Latest mainstream book bought - Allan Mallinson's On His Majesty's Service.
* Latest indie/SP bought - Remix.
* I normally read about 10 mainstream titles (say 5 non- fiction, 5 fiction including classics) for every indie/SP title.
* Everything I buy and read is printed on ex-trees. I dislike reading on any kind of screen. That is a matter of personal preference.
I meant what I said in the first post, by the way, about the scope for partnership between media-shy writers and marketing-savvy social networkers. I know one or two of the former if anyone can put me in touch with any of the latter. Just sayin'.
OK, first post didn't get through, so here it is again, in two parts...
ReplyDeleteLexi, can I wade in with a slightly different point of view? This is a reader's perspective since I am not a writer myself
I posted recently - quoting you, in fact - about some of the side-effects of the self-publishing phenomenon. Let me say right now that I love 'Remix' - I remember it from Authonomy and have bought it in hard copy - and when I said "There is some fantastic self-published and indie-published material out there", it was people like you and Dan Holloway I had in mind.
My problem is twofold. One is Jamie's comment "We all knew that good writing was highly subjective and editorial and linguistic skills have little to do with commercial success..." - well, yes and no. There's writing that some would say could do with an editorial polish, but can stand on its own without it; and there's writing that is ungrammatical, incoherent, just plain awful. No, good writing is not entirely subjective.
Sorry - 3 parts. 2 of 3
ReplyDeleteAnd then again, is commercial success the only yardstick? I know of at least two e-publishers (sic) who take great pride in pumping out as many unedited MSS as possible (many in the incoherent bracket), in the hope that one or two will become bestsellers. They are the sort who bring down the blanket scorn on the heads of self-publishers. They deserve it. You and many other self-publishers don't. But the good SP authors need to acknowledge that the others are out there, and to distance and differentiate yourselves from them, if they are to get the attention of readers like me.
Put another way, to paraphrase Mark, "The only indispensables are goodwriters and readers". There are still plenty of writers whose work can be vastly improved by a good editor. (And sadly, plenty whose work hasn't a hope of improvement, no matter how much editorial effort is expended. Dan Brown and James Patterson are two cases in point.)
3 of 3
ReplyDeleteProblem (or question) number two is the whole question of the author as self-publicist, which I go into in the post above, and also here.
I'm full of admiration for someone who can write well and is happy to promote themselves - present company included - but if (as so often) the two qualities are antithetical, give me the good writing every time.
For the record:
* Latest mainstream book bought - Allan Mallinson's On His Majesty's Service.
* Latest indie/SP bought - Remix.
* I normally read about 10 mainstream titles (say 5 non- fiction, 5 fiction including classics) for every indie/SP title.
* Everything I buy and read is printed on ex-trees. I dislike reading on any kind of screen. That is a matter of personal preference.
I meant what I said in the first post, by the way, about the scope for partnership between media-shy writers and marketing-savvy social networkers. I know one or two of the former if anyone can put me in touch with any of the latter. Just sayin'.
Part 3 of 3 has disappeared again - but it's the point I make here and in more depth here about the author as self publicist.
ReplyDeleteSome people can write and publicise themselves equally well, and I admire them for it (present company included); many can't. If it comes down to a choice between writing skills and social media skills, give me the writing every time.
bjfb, sorry Blogger sent two of your comments to Junk - I've reinstated them, rather belatedly as I've been drinking champagne at Goldsmiths' Hall (launch of Jubilee hallmark).
ReplyDeleteI think maybe you over-estimate the amount of promotion necessary. If a book is popular, once you get the ball rolling it sells itself. I've done virtually nothing to promote my books lately.
Also, the less good books aren't a problem, as they sink out of sight. Nothing to be done about books you don't like, but others do, like Dan Brown et al.