I read a pair of posts over on Fantasy-Faction via Magical Words on the issue of self-publishing and its effect on the publishing industry in general. The two authors took two very different approaches to the subject, and came from two different perspectives.
You should read the two posts if you really want to understand the full context for what I’m about to write. But in summary, one called the explosion of new authors “the writer’s plague” and decried the damaging effect of much of self-publishing has had on publishing and English literature; the other expounded on how a self-publishing signal-boosting contest run by Mark Lawrence was “revitalizing” SFF. The first comes across as very elitist even if it’s not meant that way, and the second is a massive exaggeration. SFF is being revitalized by a large number of factors, of which one is certainly gems in the rough discovered from self-publishing.
But how does that relate to my post title? Well, as often happens in self-publishing discussion, accusations of dreck-peddling by self-publishers and of elitist snobbery from fans of trade publishing came up several times in the comments to the two posts. The existence of snobbery towards self-publishing and the justification for it are a mixed bag of truths that people rarely stop to examine. But they should be examined.
Is and Why Is So Much Self-published Writing Crap?
Yes, a great deal of self-published SFF (and literature in general) is dreck. So is s portion of trade published SFF. There are several reasons for this:
- Publishers have an investment in their lists and therefore want to do as much as possible to be sure they pan out. And so they engage in editing and proof-reading. These costs come out of author profit for obvious reasons. Many self-publishers do not to to the same lengths as trade-publishers to ensure the quality of the work. This is for many reasons. They are more likely to have a biased view of the quality of their work as studies have shown it is much harder to be objective about your own material and also because they may not have written enough or studied writing enough to know how badly they’ve misjudged their work. Trade-published authors can suffer from the same issue, but that’s what editors and proof-readers are for. Further, good editing costs money. That’s why authors fork over s much of the profit to publishers and agents. Which leads to the second issue.
- There’s nothing stopping you from publishing your trunk novels and high school angst poetry. Self-publishing costs as much as you want to invest. Stock covers and raw drafts and a few hours can get your book “published”. This tends not to result in very good books.
People Misunderstand the Character of Publishers as a Business
Although publishers provide publishing services such as editing and cover design, publishers are not service companies. Lulu, Lightning Source, and CreateSpace are examples of publishing service companies. You can pay them money for services. There are many free-lance service providers. But what they will not do is “buy your book”. Which is itself a mis-characterization of what publishers do. Publishers do usually buy the various copyrights associated with your intellectual property. They don’t buy the intellectual property, though, only the license to produce a product from it.
But what publishers really are is venture capitalists. Turning a manuscript into a quality book product is expensive. Printing that book is expensive. Just like a tech start-up tries to attract venture capital to start a business when they don’t have the money themselves, an author is something like a book start-up. But they rarely have the money to take the risk on making, marketing, and selling their product themselves. So the publisher comes in and looks at the product and if they think they can make money by fronting the author the money to produce and sell the book, they make an offer.
Now, the skills to produce a quality book from a manuscript are almost entirely unrelated to the skills required to produce a manuscript. So not only does the publisher front the money, they provide the services in-house. Their large reserves of capital allow them to take the risk of providing these services with no guaranteed ROI. If the publisher publishers your book and it tanks, you don’t owe them the cost of production, nor do you owe them the advance on royalties for selling them the various license rights to the finished product.
It is the combination of these two aspects of a publisher that seem to cause people confusion.
Publishers Are Not Gatekeepers
Many people when self-publishing was just getting started were doing it because they couldn’t get accepted by a trade publisher. Their product was not believed to be marketable enough for the publisher to risk an investment. Publishers don’t give a shit about the quality of your manuscript. They care about the commercial viability.
This is why you see so many books published by trade publishers that are total shit writing-wise, or you think are total shit. Snookie’s memoir is going to sell a ton of copies and make a bundle regardless of the quality of her ghost-writer. When you are a debut author of fantasy or SF or whatever, the publisher has no way to judge the risk involved in publishing your manuscript, except for their experience in publishing other manuscripts from debut authors. And many books fail, or at least don’t succeed massively. The publisher has to have a way to recoup these losses. That’s why you get such harsh terms in your contract. The few major sellers and many minor sellers have to not only pay for the non-sellers, they also have to pay the bills and then produce a profit.
No one is stopping your from publishing your book. A publisher is not preventing you from being on bookstore shelves. The bookstore is the gatekeeper, although honestly, would you go in and yell at Shark Tank or Walmart for not investing in or stocking your amateur product? No, you wouldn’t. Because that’s silly. Publishers are investors with services-added, and they have no obligation to invest in your product/company/brand.
Agents Are Not Gatekeepers
Similarly, an agent is a company offering services. Services on commission. They are not a gatekeeper trying to screw over brilliant but misunderstood works of art. If they think your manuscript will make them money, they take it. On spec. No charges. For which you agree to pay them a percentage on future profits. If no publisher takes on the book, you don’t owe any money. In fact, the agent is out time and money on your book that they could have spent elsewhere.
Publishers Accepting Only Agented Manuscripts is not Gatekeeping
If you need an agent to get your work considered by a publisher, it’s not “gatekeeping”. Well, it is, technically. But gatekeeping is not a crime. It takes me four or five hours to read a standard-length fantasy novel. If a publisher would receive a reasonably-expected 10,000 manuscripts a year, that’s 40,000 hours. If they pay minimum wage to their first readers–which would be stupid, because knowing whether a book is potentially commercial is a high-skill job–that’s $320,000 a year just on the first screening of a manuscript. Let’s say 10% of those manuscripts are worth a second look by a more experienced reader, or even just a second read by another first reader. $32,000 a year. That’s equivalent to an entire employee position. Why in the world would you expect someone to provide you that service for free? Some entire businesses have net profits less than $352,000.
Publishers want agented manuscripts because then that process is already completed, and without them paying for it. Shit, the agent doesn’t even get paid for it. Do you as an author really want to be shelling out a minimum of $32 a manuscript submission? If you submit to 10 publishers, that’s $320 out of pocket for a manuscript that is unlikely to be picked up.
Now imagine that, but you’re paying for all the costs associated with production of the final text and the printing. You’d rather be paying for that? Please.
The Pros and Cons of Trade Publication
A trade publishing deal takes care of all the technical aspects of publication and getting space on bookstore shelves. Publishers are respected brands. You can expect to sell many copies on name recognition of the publisher alone. I know that a book published by Orbit or Tor with an interesting cover blurb has a strong chance of being worth my time and money. And you get thousands of dollars up front, which you will keep even if the books sells not a single copy.
But you do have to get accepted by a publisher, probably pay an agent, sign over your copyrights, and for a general average of 10% of the cover price in royalties, and you have to pay back your advance with sales before you get more money.
The Pros and Cons of Self-publication
You retain full creative control, keep all the copyrights, and get a far larger share of the profits.
In exchange, you front all the money for production and have to source and compensate your own talent. If you are wasting your money on a bad book, tough luck. And you might honestly not realize the low quality or commercial value of your manuscript.
So, you often hear complaints about snobbery from trade-published authors or trade publishers and readers towards self-published works. There’s no inherent reason for this, of course. Great books have been self-published and horrible books have been trade-published.
There is practical reason for this snobbery, condescension, etc. Readers get burned by self-published works all the time. There are tons and tons of horribly written, edited, and produced self-published works. The majority of them suffer from fatal flaws. And there are hundreds of thousands of them. Why in the world would a reader want to run those odds when the odds are much better (though far from perfect!) when going with a trade-published work? That’s a silly expectation.
There are many reasons an author might choose to self-publish besides they couldn’t hack it in the trade publishing world. That creative control can be very handy. There are many horror stories of publishers fucking over authors in contracts or with rights reversion. There are horror stories of shitty or racist/sexist/etc covers an author has limited say in. There are terrible stories about marketing from trade publishers for midlist books. If you happen to have the necessary skill-set for publishing and marketing a book, it may be a much better choice to self-publish. Hugh Howey got a trade publishing deal for print, but he kept e-book rights because is was financially sensible for him to do so given his success in that format. He should be applauded for that decision rather than looked down on.
Maybe the writer knew they could make more money by ignoring the desires of the publisher. If you can sell more shitty pulp novels at a higher royalty than you could a better quality novel through a publisher, who’s to say you shouldn’t, if profit is your goal? (As long as you aren’t deceiving readers, in my opinion.)
Signal to Noise and Target Audience
The elitism in trade publishing is both misplaced and understandable. The signal-to-noise ratio, or ratio of good books to bad, is drastically higher in self-publishing. But it’s important to remember that even if an author is self-publishing because they couldn’t get a trade deal, it doesn’t automatically mean their books is terrible. They may have a brilliant work that targets a niche market. The publisher may have liked the book but felt they lacked the expertise to sell to its specific audience. Perhaps it could have made profit but not enough. Perhaps there was a glut in the market. Maybe it was a little ahead of its time. Maybe it didn’t fit the publisher’s brand. Maybe it didn’t match any editor’s taste.
The sheer number of books being published today does make it a lot harder for even a brilliant story to stand out from the crowd. Even though even more of the crowd of published books these days aren’t good. It’s perfectly legitimate to complain about that. Or to not read self-published authors because as a reader you’ve found it’s not worth your time. There are more quality trade-published SFF books in the world than I could afford in terms or either time or money. The review blog I participate in doesn’t review self-published books because we haven’t found it to provide us the same value as readers or reviewers. There’s nothing snobby about that. No one owes your book their time or money. You may have a quality book that doesn’t succeed the way you want it to, and it doesn’t have to be malicious.
I am 100% against condemning other’s publishing decisions. But I think it’s reasonable to discuss them. If I think a writer might have done better to trade publish than self-publish, I’ll say so. You shouldn’t call people stupid, or cast insults because they chose a different route than you. You shouldn’t do that even if their book sucks, unless they are misrepresenting that for personal gain. You’re perfectly welcome to say a book sucks, though.
The tone of the first article I linked to is distressing. It’s metaphor is insulting. It makes a few valid points, but there’s no reason why they had to be a jerk about them. And it makes a few invalid points, as well. Rather than just criticizing other’s “bad” decisions, we should first seek to understand them and the context in which they occur. And then, with that understanding, we might consider critiquing them. Maybe.