How does self-publishing differ from traditional publishing?
Self-publishing is either liberation or self-indulgence depending on
how you go about it. There's a dubious association with instant
gratification. The core benefits: you retain all control over your
material, you keep a bigger chunk of the profits, and, oftentimes,
you're able to forge a more personal relationship with your audience.
The drawbacks (which, depending on your motivation, can also be
benefits): you must be your own publisher, editing, formatting,
creating effective packaging; you must be your own marketing team -
you must be willing and able to spend a portion of your time as a
door-to-door salesperson of sorts. It's a lesson in patience and
refinement, though not such an added burden considering that many
traditional publishers these days require you to have a marketing plan
anyway.
Regarding availability, the gap is narrowing between books sold off of
a book shelf and those sold via a web site. Chain book stores are
steadily closing, and while you still have Barnes & Noble, Borders,
and the independents, these stores only have so much physical space.
There are legions of capable, entertaining "mid-list" authors whose
books are not often included between Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer.
Selling through the Internet is a way to defeat the problem of limited
shelf space. It also happens to be the most accessible method
available to self-publishers.
Do self-published book review blogs help to raise the reader awareness of self-published books?
Absolutely. Legitimate, critical self-publishing review blogs (like
good traditional-publishing review blogs) point out the blemishes as
well as the dimples. For serious self-publishers, this is what you
want if you have a good, solid book that doesn't carry the reputation
of being self-published because it can't stand on its own, because it
can't find traditional publication. It should never be assumed that
getting reviewed at a self-publishing review blog is easier than
getting reviewed elsewhere.
How do you respond to the following statement?--Self-publishing is not a serious way to get one's work into print now and never will be.
I daresay a more accurate version of the above statement is:
"Self-indulgence is not a serious way to get one's work into print now
and never will be." If you're not ready, if you're rushed, then it
will come across to reviewers and readers alike. With self-publishing,
there's no editor or agent acting as a stop-gap. What I'm finding as I
go along is that it's not so much the self-publishing model itself
that needs to clean up its image as it is the ability of
self-publishing authors to effectively promote their work. It's all in
how you do it.
Has the golden age of self-publishing already passed or is it yet to come?
Bigger and better things are yet to come. I'm convinced the
traditional publishing industry had to stumble before a real awareness
was raised regarding alternative book markets. The technology had to
improve to a point where anyone with a computer and Internet
connection could feasibly create and publish. Book stores, whether
they're selling print or digital copies, will continue to be country
clubs for the elites, which is perfectly fine. Many authors are
bestsellers for a reason: they're very good at what they do. But
they're not the only kids on the block. Self-published books - good
ones - will continue to fill the gaps. Eventually, when (and I do
think it's a matter of when and not if) e-books become the norm,
everyone will be selling via digital download. The old notion that you
find professional authors' books on store shelves, and amateurs'
online will hold much less water.
What about the challenges posed to the self-published writer by having to promote and edit his or her own book?
This is something many traditional publishers are requiring of their
authors due to tighter budgets. In the past, you could, to some
extent, get away with merely sending in your manuscript and letting
the publishing team handle the rest. You only needed to be on hand for
signings or interviews. Now you need a marketing plan to go along with
your synopsis and sample chapters. You need to convince your would-be
publisher that you're a hustler. You need an agent. And even then, a
contract with a traditional publisher comes with no guarantees. Yes,
depending on your contract, you'll have access to physical store
shelves, but you still have to work your butt off promoting yourself.
You're selling more books, but getting a smaller percentage of each
sale. Not a bad thing. On the DIY side, you're selling fewer books,
but keeping more of the profits; you're having to manage all your book
sales yourself, whether through your web site or via consignment
agreements with local book shop owners. All stereotypes aside, both
traditional and self-publishing endeavors involve a lot of work. The
latter is more easily attainable, whether as your sole method of
publishing or as a hook to attract a mainstream publisher.
Why is it that a self-published author has yet to emerge into national recognition as a self-published author? (As opposed to being given a mainstream publishing contract after a self-published book attracts attention.)
I think a lot of it is the social stigma of someone coming up to you
and saying, "My latest novel is great! You should read it!" People
don't like it when other people toot their own horn - but they don't
mind as much when you toot someone else's horn. With self-publishing,
this is something of a challenge. You have to promote yourself without
sounding like a greasy car salesman, you have to get other people to
blurb you and promote you. It can be exceedingly difficult, because
you're not working with a paid staff, you're working with friends,
other self-published authors, family members. They all have their own
lives to worry about.
Also, at this point in time, traditional publishers still carry a lot
of clout. A contract with Random House can do wonders for your
literary presence. I've seen numerous instances where an author will
start a series of books with a mainstream publisher, and then finish
the series at a smaller press, or under his / her own imprint.
Whatever politics are going on behind the scenes, an audience has
gathered, and they'll follow if the books are good. Bands do it all
the time.
Has the experience of self-publishing changed the way you write? (If you have self-published.)
I started self-publishing because the small presses I'd been with
closed up shop, and I felt my work up until that point was still
relevant enough to warrant some kind of distribution. With new
material I've found that I've become more daring. After all, I'm no
longer having to adhere to a publisher's tastes or guidelines. I've
been able to stretch out a little, blending genres and styles. I've
already had to go it alone, and so I'm not worried about falling from
grace, so to speak. At the same time, though, I've had to make sure I
don't get too lax. Proofreaders are still important (*before* the
publishing process!), honest opinions still matter, and it's still my
main goal each time around to write the best book I can.
Jesse Gordon is the author of several books. He writes at jessture.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment