Self-publishers versus book reviewers - FIGHT!

[HareBrain]

Promotion is a lot of work, it is not fun, it is kind of boring.

But dressing up in the costumes is fun, surely? And the stunts? The dangerous, death-defying stunts to get publicity? And the kidnappings?

 

[dustinzgirl]

But dressing up in the costumes is fun, surely? And the stunts? The dangerous, death-defying stunts to get publicity? And the kidnappings?

No thats fun stuff. All the typing up of all the blurbs and stuff to make it searchable on the Internet is not.

 

[HareBrain]

No thats fun stuff. All the typing up of all the blurbs and stuff to make it searchable on the Internet is not.

That's what the kidnap victims are for! Durr.

 

[dustinzgirl]

That's what the kidnap victims are for! Durr.

I tried that once but my kids got hungry.

 

[Yahzi]

So what's your's called. Tell us a little about it Yahzi?

It's a fantasy novel. Unpublishable because a) it's 200K words, and b) the protagonist is not a farm boy, sassy girl, or homicidal dwarf. Still, every person who reads it says the same thing: "When's the next one coming out?"

Check out World of Prime for an excerpt.

I am particularly proud of the fact that it is written from a single point of view (unlike most fantasy novels, which have dozens of character viewpoints). This is either admirable discipline or monomania, depending on your point of view (snicker).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's a fantasy novel. Unpublishable because ... the protagonist is not a farm boy, sassy girl, or homicidal dwarf.

This would come as a big surprise to all the people who are reading and writing successful fantasy novels that don't have protagonists that are farm boys, sassy girls, or homicidal dwarves either.

A better strategy in promoting your book is to concentrate solely on what is there, rather than what isn't.

Looking at your website, the book sounds like it uses many, many familiar fantasy tropes, and there is nothing wrong with that if you handle it well, which I assume that you do. But my point is that your readers are the people who are looking for something familiar, not the people who want something entirely different. You should describe your book in terms that are going to attract the people who are going to want to read it, not the readers who will take a look at it and say, "Modern man goes into stock medieval fantasy setting and sets them right by introducing modern technology ... yup, I've read a couple with that plot before. I was hoping for something more along the lines of China Mieville."

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's a fantasy novel. Unpublishable because a) it's 200K words, and b) the protagonist is not a farm boy, sassy girl, or homicidal dwarf.

When I was first writing I took great delight in being critical of published novels in the genre - I would actually go into Waterstones, pick up a random book, read the first page, and laugh to myself about how inferior it was.

Really, it was a problem of attitude on my part and my refusal to accept that I could be wrong both about my writing style and what people actually wanted to read.

My experience now is that it's all wasted energy best spent on doing the best you can - the type of protagonist, and the use of viewpoint, does not determine whether a book will be successful or not - simply consider Stephen Donaldson or George R R Martin in these respects.

I think sometimes writers hold themselves back because they feel they have written something unique and feel the only way to get published to is compromise to empty commercial agendas. The actual truth is more likely to be that that story involves many facets of already published works, and that any compromise is based on making the writing stronger and tighter, than anything else.

2c.

PS: 200k words isn't really that high for a fantasy novel. I'm editing down 750k!

 

[The Judge]

When I was first writing I took great delight in being critical of published novels in the genre - I would actually go into Waterstones, pick up a random book, read the first page, and laugh to myself about how inferior it was.

Doesn't everybody?!

Really, it was a problem of attitude on my part and my refusal to accept that I could be wrong both about my writing style and what people actually wanted to read.

I can't comment on your writing style, Brian, but the fact that people actually want to read rubbish is no reason not to mock it. Let's have more public ridicule of the absurd and superficial and downright dross, not less! We might not change the world, but if we can stop one person from buying a vacuous celebrity novel, we will have done A Good Thing.

 

[Susan Boulton]

It's a fantasy novel. Unpublishable because a) it's 200K words, and b) the protagonist is not a farm boy, sassy girl, or homicidal dwarf.

Actually, it could be publishable for the very reasons you state it is not. I suggest you do some research as to what agencys/publishers are buying now, not what they bought and published 5 or even 3 years ago.

Hate to say it, but one eye on the market studying the type of books a publisher or agent handles does help you "place" your work.



The magazine Locus is a good start and the publishers marketplace. Publishers/Agents blogs and sites, as well.

200k is a big book for a newbie to get published. Yes, it is not unknown, but it shortens the odds. It would have to be something special for them to take a risk.

 

[ara]

I'm self-publishing a book at the moment, and I understand all of your views regarding the subject. However, in my situation, self-publishing was not decided on because of a desperate urge to see my book in print, but rather the only way to get it done. Due to quite complicated personal matters, finding an agent to publish with a subsidy publishing, or something like that, would have been almost impossible. However, once I write my second book, I do not intend on using self-publishing. For now, this is simply a first-time option. So far, it seems alright, but my book is not yet published now, is it?

 

[The Judge]

I'm a bit confused about your post, ara, as you seem to be linking finding an agent with subsidy publishing, and they are not at all connected. And I really don't want to knock you back at all, but if this is your first novel, are you sure that it is in a state to be published? Have you had it edited, for instance?

I can't tell from your post how far you've got in the process of self-publishing. If you haven't yet signed anything and/or passed over any money, could I respectfully suggest that you don't, not just yet. Instead, if your work is speculative fiction, put a few hundred words here in the critiques forum, and see what reactions you get. That might help you decide how to proceed.

In any event, good luck - and Welcome to the Chronicles.

 

[Tirellan]

I'm self-publishing a book at the moment, and I understand all of your views regarding the subject. However, in my situation, self-publishing was not decided on because of a desperate urge to see my book in print, but rather the only way to get it done. Due to quite complicated personal matters, finding an agent to publish with a subsidy publishing, or something like that, would have been almost impossible. However, once I write my second book, I do not intend on using self-publishing. For now, this is simply a first-time option. So far, it seems alright, but my book is not yet published now, is it?

Finding an agent to publish with a subsidy publisher is impossible. Agents and subsidy publishers are mutually exclusive. An agent finds a publisher who will pay you (and takes 15% commission). A subsidy publisher takes your money and fills your garage with books that you have to try and sell.

 

[pdurrant]

A subsidy publisher takes your money and fills your garage with books that you have to try and sell.

I'd agree with that. Self-publishing fiction is probably not a sensible move in the first place - unknown writers need to be on shelves in bookshops where people might at least pick the book up, and the only way to do that is through traditional publishers.

But if you feel you must self-publish, as least do it the least foolish way - do it as a print-on-demand book. That way you won't have a garage full of unsold books, and the capital cost is much, much less. And for the numbers that self-publishers might get printed (say a couple of thousand), POD costs about the same per-book (for paperbacks) anyway. Indeed, if you ordered 1,000 copies from a [STRIKE]vanity[/STRIKE]subsidy press, they'd probably get them done by a POD printer anyway! An offset press run only really starts to be a lot cheaper when you get up into the 5,000+ units range.

 

[Liz Bent]

I chose self-publishing because I didn't want to be bothered with the back-and-forth of querying and so on, and I could afford it. I never even tried to get it professionally published.

It's a little eye-opening to see how industry professionals view these books.

 

[Tirellan]

I chose self-publishing because I didn't want to be bothered with the back-and-forth of querying and so on, and I could afford it. I never even tried to get it professionally published.

It's a little eye-opening to see how industry professionals view these books.

How many books have you sold?
Have you found it possible to get your book reviewed?

 

[Liz Bent]

How many books have you sold?
Have you found it possible to get your book reviewed?

Very few books- I did send the book away for review, and one person did read it and promised to put me in touch with an editor, but I never heard from that person. Upon rereading the book a year after it was out in print, I realized it has some major flaws, so I never bothered attempting to market it. I need to contact the company and find out how to revise my manuscript, but that's been a project I have been putting off for a long time now.

In short, if I was trying to make a living at writing, self-publishing would have failed me miserably!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I chose self-publishing because I didn't want to be bothered with the back-and-forth of querying ...

The worst possible reason to self-publish, because when you do self-publish you are taking on all the responsibility for marketing and promotion, which makes the work (and bother) of sending out queries look very, very easy by comparison.

The only authors who succeed at self-publishing are outgoing, energetic, confident individuals who are willing to do a lot of legwork, and by projecting their own enthusiasm (and engaging personalities) convince bookstores to stock their books and reviewers to review them. In other words, complete extroverts who have a talent for promoting themselves and their ideas.

In short, if I was trying to make a living at writing, self-publishing would have failed me miserably!

Very few traditionally published writers make a living off their writing, so that's no measurement. Perhaps you were more successful (comparatively speaking) than you think you were.

Every time I see the title of this thread, I wince, because it sounds so antagonistic. The worst thing an author can do when approaching a reviewer is sound defensive. The idea is not to bully them or guilt them into reading the book; it's to charm them into it.

 

[Liz Bent]

Very few traditionally published writers make a living off their writing, so that's no measurement. Perhaps you were more successful (comparatively speaking) than you think you were.

If financial gain is not the benchmark to measure success by, how do most authors measure this? By good reviews? Book sales? Winning prizes?

I imagine this varies from person to person, but I thought I'd put the question out there.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course there are authors who are successful by each and all of those standards, but the majority of authors -- particularly authors of genre fiction -- are happy to continue to be published and to make a nice supplementary income in addition to the day job that pays most of the bills.

If you are writing a fantasy novel with the idea that you are going to make a living as a writer, unless you are very lucky and talented in some particular way that strikes the public imagination at just the right time, you are going to be disappointed.

So you should write because you feel compelled to write and you publish (either by the traditional route or by one of the new technologies) because you want as many people as possible to read your work and love it as much as you do. The goal, of course, is to reach a point where you do make enough from writing that writing becomes your full-time job, but many published writers never get there. And the number who get rich by writing is a tiny, tiny percentage.

The difference between self-publishing (in terms of numbers) and traditional publishing, is that the self-published writer is lucky to sell more than a hundred copies. An author published by a major house who isn't making a living at it might sell ten or twenty thousand.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I don't bother with self published stuff - unless I personally know the writer

To me, those are the worst sort - you feel pressured to buy/read them, but what if they turn out to be (like most self-published books) truly awful? Do you lie and add to the author's self-delusion, or do you say what you think and maybe lose a friend?

Going back to the original post, it's well known that book reviews account for only a small percentage of sales. Word-of-mouth is far more important! Although come to think of it, I've rarely bought a book on literal word-of-mouth recommendation. Maybe I don't have enough friends with similar tastes in fiction...