Self-published/Indie book platform

[hitmouse]

It's obvious that the modern corporate publishing field is restricted. They have authors signing morality contracts so they adhere to political agendas.
But, in the era of publishing considered the Golden Age, you had expert commentators saying it was a restricted field as well.

Lovecraft died in some obscurity in the 1930s and published in genre pulp magazines.
Capote died in 1984 and had major mainstream literary and critical success.

I am not sure which golden age you are talking about.

 

[KGeo777]

I am not sure which golden age you are talking about.

Stephen King said that a short story author in the 1950s could buy a house from writing short stories for magazines. By 2000, even a novel writer was not so well compensated.
Despite his corporate brand success, even he said that traditional publishing was not what it used to be in terms of distribution and popularity.
Nowadays they want to erase names from literary history for not adhering to their present-day politics.
I don't think the rise of self-publishing is just because of online access. It's also because the corporate-centralized media companies have become stale and readers (and authors) are seeking more freedom in creativity and thought.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I have to say, I think you're way off the mark there. 99.99% of it is due to online access. That's why 99.99% of self published writers never become authors. I expect I'll be bashed for saying this, as it's becoming increasingly difficult to state this inconvenient truth, but, hey... I'm an older author and I don't care any more! This doesn't just apply to writing, it's all forms of culture mediated by the internet.

 

[KGeo777]

I remember how it was 20 years ago. "Vanity publishing."
The term vanity publishing doesn't exist in any other art form. And it has fallen out of use because it no longer matters. No one cares.
Funny thing is, no one accuses a musician of having vanity or a painter of being vain because they go to a printer to self-publish their art. Same with a filmmaker.
What is it with writing that created that stigma?
I don't think the public ever cared if something was self-published or not.
The stigma came entirely from the publishing and critical realms.
But it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Rodders]

I'm not sure how I feel about self published books as my only experience has been the Wool Trilogy. I enjoyed it, but I thought it was unnecessarily long.

 

[Dan Jones]

It's an interesting idea, and worth a business plan, as has been mentioned, to investigate it. There may well be something similar out there, but I'm not aware of it. You'd have to think about the USP for the site / portal, and how to make it stand out. Stephen makes a good point about working with indie authors, of whom there are many, and small presses, who are again numerous and able to focus on small artistic niches and creative freedoms. Self-publishing has its success stories, but they are outliers, and outliers for a reason.

I'm very much of the opinion that "if you build it they will come" - and you'll get far more traction if you even attempt it that you would if you don't, but it'll be a hard road. One thing I've learned so far from doing Chronscast is that there is a huge amount of goodwill out there in the SFF community, and plenty of people will be willing to support and lend a hand if they feel the job's a good'un.

 

[LeonStevens]

Two comments:

There are several Goodreads groups that focus on reading and supporting indie authors, so having another platform may be unnecessary work. Is there room for more? Maybe.

I think most indie authors write in hopes of being the next big discovery, but go about it in different ways. You can:

1. Write to market, creating stories from tropes that sell, in categories that offer the greatest exposure with the least competition, or:
2. Write stories that you would enjoy reading.

The second one allows for more creativity because you are not constrained by any boundaries.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

I would probably use a site like that. I myself plan to self-publish, since it seems like a better business option for me than traditional publishing, and the main concern in my mind when considering that route has always been marketing--making it easier for a genuinely good story to stand out from the crowd of underdeveloped ones. I'm all for freely letting writers saturate the market with books that aren't worth anyone's time, as long as we can come up with a way for readers to quickly distinguish the gems amidst the mud!

A thought here, that might be worth exploring: fanfiction communities have all had this problem from the beginning. They've always been about ninety-seven percent terrible stuff, with a corresponding three percent of stories that are absolutely worth reading--and finding one of those is always the goal and the hope for anyone looking through the selection. For years now, those websites have been developing their own different systems for helping readers sift out their preferred three percent. You might consider evaluating what systems have worked for fanfiction sites and what haven't, and figure out what could potentially be adapted for use with a website for marketing self-published books.

Further thoughts: perhaps you could allow the author to offer, freely, the first few pages of their book, in order to make the evaluation process for readers a little more concrete. As an author, I would be more than happy to do that, and I expect others would as well. I know Amazon offers a "look inside" type of thing, which for some reason almost rarely works on my computer, but which I've always found very helpful when evaluating books.

Perhaps you could also include something along the lines of accepting submitted articles/blogs from people, where they offer a list of their favorite self-published books with some evaluation along the way. It would be a resource people could turn to when searching for where to start, and it wouldn't be as plagued by bots. I expect that would involve more work, though, just in terms of evaluating the articles themselves before letting them on the website.

The entire issue, I suppose, is creating a trustworthy source for people to help them decide whether a self-published book is worth their time or not. People trust good authors, so there's a start--perhaps you can get more of the self-published authors themselves involved in this type of website, to the point where if a reader finds an author they really like, from there they can find all the other authors which that author likes, and so on. If Terry Pratchett said he greatly enjoyed reading some book I'd never heard of, I'd definitely be more inclined to go look it up and find out why.

Which still may be an idea somewhat fraught with danger, of course, since there's money involved here. I know some fanfiction sites use the similar "favorites" concept for their members--each author's account has a "favorites" list--but again, there's no money involved there, so maybe that's the reason it works as a marketing tool. Perhaps you could put an "author recommended" section for each listed author and leave it at that, a free space for the author to recommend anybody else's story, if they wish. Either way, that might circumvent the idea of bots, since somebody who hadn't actually written a good book themselves would automatically be less trusted by a reader when they recommend someone else's book.

I suppose what I'm imagining is all echo-chamber related--the more people who pick up on and enjoy a book, the more visible it will be to everyone else. Perhaps there's another way. Word-of-mouth has always been the oldest marketing method, friends recommending things to friends, so if there's any possible way to recreate that online, that would probably be best. Perhaps what would be most effective is more of a community of people who are interested in finding and promoting good self-published stories.

Or perhaps you don't have to pick just one tactic. You could adopt as many tactics as possible to increase quality visibility, and give readers multiple avenues to find new good books. Eventually, the best books will surface one way or another--and perhaps, along with them, the best and most reliable ways of finding them, which you can then shift to concentrating on.

Either way, I love the idea of a website like that--it would help to reward quality by consensus, which is how readership works anyway, while still maintaining the hands-on benefits of self-publishing. My only concern, I suppose, would be whether a website like that might artificially separate self-published books from traditionally published books, in terms of audience. Surely Goodreads allows self-published books into their review/rating system already? Self-published books shouldn't need their marketing to be isolated from traditionally published books in order to properly compete; you'll just end up dividing readers into those who are specifically interested in self-published books (who'll use your website), and those who don't care but just want good books, whether traditionally published or self-published (who'll find a self-published-only website restrictive). Would your website be limited only to self-published books, or could an author with a traditionally-published book that they wish to market be allowed to use the site?

Anyway, bottom line--great idea, sounds very helpful for both authors and readers in a situation where self-published books don't easily get visibility, but should perhaps be opened up to any author with a book to market, since, to be fair, self-published authors aren't the only ones facing the challenge of marketing their own work.

 

[Bick]

It's obvious that the modern corporate publishing field is restricted.

I don't find this a very persuasive argument. There may be restrictions I don't know about, but simply saying 'it's obvious' rather shortcuts the discussion. The main restriction would seem to be for (some) publishers to favor work that follows certain current social agendas, but we are not supposed to discuss that issue on the forum, so maybe that's why you're keeping things vague? That is only some publishers though. There are a wide variety of publishers after all.

...in the era of publishing considered the Golden Age, you had expert commentators saying it was a restricted field as well.

Perhaps, but that's rather irrelevant to today, isn't it? Hitmouse's comment echoed my own thoughts when you mentioned these authors from the previous century.

 

[Bick]

Stephen King said that a short story author in the 1950s could buy a house from writing short stories for magazines. By 2000, even a novel writer was not so well compensated.
Despite his corporate brand success, even he said that traditional publishing was not what it used to be in terms of distribution and popularity.

This addresses sales numbers and author revenue, but says nothing about writers' freedom or the traditional industry becoming stale.

 

[KGeo777]

I don't find this a very persuasive argument. There may be restrictions I don't know about, but simply saying 'it's obvious' rather shortcuts the discussion. The main restriction would seem to be for (some) publishers to favor work that follows certain current social agendas, but we are not supposed to discuss that issue on the forum, so maybe that's why you're keeping things vague? That is only some publishers though. There are a wide variety of publishers after all.


Perhaps, but that's rather irrelevant to today, isn't it? Hitmouse's comment echoed my own thoughts when you mentioned these authors from early in the previous century.

I don't want to hijack this thread by a discussion on this.
If Lovecraft and Capote--two different writers and decades apart, said the publishing field was restricted then, who am I to argue with them? They didn't know what they were talking about? If Stephen King says that a short story writer in 1950 was earning far more than a short story writer in 2000, I cannot dispute that--if you can, then fine.
I didn't need that delirious recipient of the final John W Campbell Jr. award to provide further ammunition on why corporate publishing is so sickly and restricted, but it doesn't hurt the argument. There's an obvious anti-nativist sentiment being pushed --Lovecraft and Capote were aware of it--and it has not decreased. It has grown.
Yet Dracula, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, and other thematic material that existed well before the vice was squeezed is sold and republished and new readers come along. People still read it so I am convinced the restrictions on creativity has little or nothing to do with people's tastes shifting to narrower themes and characterization.
One can have a detailed discussion on the type of ideas that are restricted, but it's not the subject of this thread.

 

[KGeo777]

This addresses sales numbers and author revenue, but says nothing about writers' freedom or the traditional industry becoming stale.

You would have to read his article. It was from 2000. He criticized literary magazines for their limited range--saying that the editors were picking stories that appealed to them instead of readers. He did not get into the subject like Lovecraft and Capote did.

 

[Bick]

If Lovecraft and Capote--two different writers and decades apart, said the publishing field was restricted then, who am I to argue with them? They didn't know what they were talking about?

The point I and Hitmouse have made is that that was then, this is now. If it was 'restricted' (whatever that means) many decades ago, that still isn't a convincing argument it is more restricted now, which was your initial argument. I would say it was perhaps less restricted. Who's right? You've offered no evidence it's worse now than it ever was. What is the actual evidence? How would this even be measured? I think it's an intuitive guess you've made rather than an empirical fact.

If Stephen King says that a short story writer in 1950 was earning far more than a short story writer in 2000, I cannot dispute that--if you can, then fine.

No one is disputing this, I'm sure it's true. But as I already explained, King's comments are about income and sales. They are distinct from the theme of freedom and whether the industry is stale, and don't provide any direct support for your thesis.

...I am convinced the restrictions on creativity

I still don't know what you mean by 'restrictions on creativity' - what restrictions on creativity, specifically? Can you offer some concrete examples?

 

[atsouthorn]

The thread has been split into two conversations. I'm going to focus on the platform side of things, as the merits or limits of creativity and freedom in self-publishing vs trad publishing aren't what's driving the platform's needs, though the debate certainly encapsulates why some people may choose self-publishing in the first place. My small nugget of experience here came in the only two rejections I ever received last year, both on the basis that my book was good but didn't fit the "criteria of diversity and current trends". I could have submitted to many more agencies, but my mind was made up.

Interesting to read all the posts above. Thanks everyone.

Either way, I love the idea of a website like that--it would help to reward quality by consensus, which is how readership works anyway, while still maintaining the hands-on benefits of self-publishing. My only concern, I suppose, would be whether a website like that might artificially separate self-published books from traditionally published books, in terms of audience. Surely Goodreads allows self-published books into their review/rating system already? Self-published books shouldn't need their marketing to be isolated from traditionally published books in order to properly compete; you'll just end up dividing readers into those who are specifically interested in self-published books (who'll use your website), and those who don't care but just want good books, whether traditionally published or self-published (who'll find a self-published-only website restrictive). Would your website be limited only to self-published books, or could an author with a traditionally-published book that they wish to market be allowed to use the site?

It's an interesting point, as there are countless examples of people finding trad agents but then being expected to market themselves, or not even being able to gain enough sales before the plug is pulled. They also count in the crowd of those not getting a helping hand to get on the ladder. It's something to consider, or maybe even create a separate section for.

Ultimately I don't mind having a smaller crowd use the website, authors and readers alike, because it's not going to host a community or purchasing options. It's quite simply just a gateway where, once you discover something you like, you can go to Amazon to buy it, or go to Goodreads to talk about it, or go to Patreon to support the author etc etc.
I'm not trying to drag people away from other websites, so I don't think it will veer into the realm of people finding it "restrictive", because it's not really keeping them away from anything.

I'm not sure how I feel about self published books as my only experience has been the Wool Trilogy. I enjoyed it, but I thought it was unnecessarily long.

I've read some hits and misses, which I've also had in trad published books. So from my experience I would say both areas are similar, but you're more likely to get misses and extreme misses in self-published work, especially if you're taking a gamble on something not reviewed by many/any people. Having said that, you can usually tell with the first page or two if it's going to be a waste of time or unreadable, which some are. Some have typos in the first paragraph. Others are magnificent.

 

[KGeo777]

I still don't know what you mean by 'restrictions on creativity' - what restrictions on creativity, specifically? Can you offer some concrete examples?

It deserves its own thread and I could talk for days about it. Endless examples.

The reason I draw a connection to the past is because those publishing companies that Lovecraft and Capote said were restricting content decades ago, they eventually got absorbed into other companies and those companies got smaller and smaller in ownership. If you check the big 5 or 6 multi-national media companies now-- they usually fired staff when they merged and the decisions fall into fewer hands.
I think that would mean less chances for variety than before.
That is certainly what happened with film as the companies merged.
Publishing did undergo something similar---when Harry Potter came along, they started to stock entire shelves with it--and used the blockbuster expression as has been used in film (and in stage theater before that). The idea was that people wanted more of less. So, if you were a science fiction fan, you did not want the choice of 10 different sci-fi movies, you only wanted to watch Star Wars 10 times instead. Supposedly.

There was more talk of Harry Potter and less room for other voices. We were told this was all due to public demand and had nothing to do with corporate-engineered marketing and distribution control. "India loves Harry Potter!"

As for examples, in Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, and Conan, there are strong successful male heterosexual characters who are able to problem solve without outside dependency--there may be a collaboration but it doesn't make the protagonist look weak or dependent. There's also a separation between the value of home and the foreign.

The foreign is dangerous and you have to be careful with it. That's an ancient story point. You find that in classical works that are still read today.

In the case of Dracula, we have men from a specific place (and a couple of exotics from the US and Holland?) they come together and defeat a scheming foreigner who seeks to prey on women and children (thank goodness it's fantasy).

With Conan, in a story like Tower of the Elephant, he encounters an alien captive-and he makes a deal to free/kill the creature--not to become his mentor, or his sidekick, or his president, or his marital partner--but to go off-presumably back home. There's a separation line between home and the foreign.

Sherlock Holmes has that too.

The emphasis is also on natural-born ability. The strength and courage of the men in Dracula, the brain of Sherlock Holmes, the natural powers of Conan.

Harry Potter is different. For one thing he is a wizard. That is outside of natural abilities. His adopted home is rejected. Those awful muggles. He is better off in a foreign land, surrounded by strangers from other places, and he is reliant on magical powers and the help of his companions and many mentors. He is supposed to be a savior but does he really demonstrate heroic traits?
It sure doesn't sound like a traditional characterization.

So if I am wrong on the restrictive trends in theme and character, then suggest one that seems like it could have been written in 1930 or 1900 and was published recently by a traditional publisher and the author doesn't have any biographical eccentricities that may serve as virtue signaling advert fodder.
I WILL scrutinize it in detail.

Beware.

 

[KGeo777]

That's my last post in this thread because I didn't want to discuss that in this. It's off topic.

 

[Lostinspace]

I decided to use necromancy on this thread rather than start a new thread because I received an email from Smashwords yesterday telling me that Draft2digital was buying Smashwords DRAFT2DIGITAL TO ACQUIRE SMASHWORDS - Draft2Digital | Blog.

This is probably a good thing for indie authors as it seems generally believed that Draft2digital has easier to use software for authors whilst Smashwords has a useable store (it may be possible to buy books directly from Draft2digital but I have never worked out how).

It might be a very good thing for readers if the merger allowed investment in the Smashwords store software to enable readers to find books more easily, for example if you know a word from the title and that the author’s name started with an S or even two words from the title (at present if you search for blue moon, you get all title containing either blue or moon). It will also be very nice to find books published by Draft2digital.

However, I do have one fear. At present I can buy a book from Smashwords and be confident that it does not have DRM. I believe that Draft2digital allows authors to encumber their books with DRM and it will be very bad if such horrors invade the Smashwords store.

 

[Justin Swanton]

However, I do have one fear. At present I can buy a book from Smashwords and be confident that it does not have DRM. I believe that Draft2digital allows authors to encumber their books with DRM and it will be very bad if such horrors invade the Smashwords store.

DRM is pointless anyhow. You can easily crack it with Calibre.

 

[Justin Swanton]

The only thing I pick up from the publishing industry is that they very much prefer an established name over an unknown since an established name is a guaranteed sell, and that they haven't the slightest idea what makes for a successful novel before it becomes successful. Publishing is a cutthroat game and the field is littered with corpses so I doubt the average editor has the luxury to apply his own proclivities to manuscripts; he's trying to find something that will sell and goes about it the same way a man would who's stumbling around looking for the light switch in a pitch black room.

It's also very hard to say what constitutes a "good" book that many readers would agree is good. There are two things that matter in a book: what it's about and how it's written. The first is more important than the second though of course there are minimum standards for the second. Harry Potter IMHO is badly written but it succeeded because it was able to put the fantasy genre into a modern setting, making it much more relatable to many people.

Given that what a book is about is what really matters it's impossible to say what will appeal to a sizeable body of readers since what people like varies so much from one individual to the next. The one common denominator I do pick up however is need to create as complete and convincing a world as possible. Tolkien is lord of fantasy because Middle Earth is so vast, in races, languages, history and all the rest. So a writer can't take shortcuts.

I suggest you get together half a dozen well-read individuals who set some criteria for well-written indie books and then promote those books following the criteria. Be ruthless - it's only gems you're interested in, and make sure that you do pick out the actual gems. Look out for successful indie books elsewhere and promote them. That might get readers' notice.

 

[Toby Frost]

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/581456/#post-2522621