Publishing Is Broken, We’re Drowning In Indie Books – And That’s A Good Thing
From Forbes:
I love books. Physical books. Books that sit in my lap and warm it like a sleeping pup. Three and a half years ago, I had an e-reader unwillingly thrust upon me. I ignored it at first; shunned it. Then one day I was packing for a long trip and it came on me in a flash that if I used the damned thing I wouldn’t have to limit myself to five pounds of books in my luggage.
Since then I read more ebooks than physical books. I buy a lot more books, too.
. . . .
The beneficiaries of the existing order – major publishers and their most successful authors have become the most visible opponents of the turmoil that these “Indie” authors have introduced.
Which is too bad, because careful examination suggests that this period of chaos will eventually yield significant rewards for both authors and consumers. It even points a way forward for traditional publishers who have faced years of declining profits.
. . . .
[Author Brad] Thor is unequivocal in his support for the existing system:
The important role that publishers fill is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract.
Thor is being polite. When successful mainstream authors let their guard down, stronger words flow.
. . . .
Why do mainstream authors dislike Indie publishing to the point where some even disagree with the coined term “Indie”? It comes down to worldview. Bestselling authors who are talented and hard working – like Thor and Grafton – are inclined to believe that publishing is a meritocracy where the best work by the most diligent writers gets represented, acquired, published and sold. But this is demonstrably untrue. The most famous counter example is that of John Kennedy Toole.
Many people know that Toole had his great American novel, “A Confederacy of Dunces” rejected by publishers and that he committed suicide at 31.
. . . .
Rejecting Toole’s work was a marketing decision that [Robert] Gottleib made for Simon & Schuster.
. . . .
But the conceit that Indie authors are merely a bunch of lazy hacks unwilling to face rejection ignores the fact that even the biggest proponents of the old publishing system admit that there are many talented published authors nobody has ever heard of.
. . . .
Just like A-list actors, writers like Grafton and Thor are superstars – the exception rather than the rule. But exceptions exist on both sides of the publishing divide these days. One of the newer Indie stars is Hugh Howey, the science fiction author whose brilliant, dystopian novella Wool has sold more than 200,000 copies in the U.S. alone, sold overseas rights in fifteen countries and was recently optioned by Ridley Scott for a movie. (His newest book, I, Zombie
launches today.)
When I asked Howey about the view that indie authors would do better to try to publish conventionally he compared the current system to a lottery:
When people think of traditionally published successes, they think of The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. This is what they compare to the self-publishing route. But those are lottery winners, the extreme outliers. In order to level the playing field and have a true comparison, you need to look at everything that gets submitted to the traditional machine – that means all the work that never makes it out of the slush pile – and compare that to all the self-published e-books on Amazon and elsewhere. Counting the top 1% from the traditional route and everything from the self-published route creates a weighted argument and is disingenuous. And calling cases like mine the exception and forgetting that this is also true of every book in the center aisle of the bookstore is also facile.
Robert Bidinotto, a former journalist whose eerily effective indie vigilante novel Hunter
shot onto bestseller lists last year agrees:
The idea that you have to be rejected by a New York editor to improve as a writer is absurd.
Howey concurs and in his response to Grafton adds:
Tell me this: why is self-publishing antithetical to “honing one’s craft?” Who ever received writing advice in a rejection letter as sound as the worst 1-star review out there? There’s far more to learn from engaging the market with your product than there is in form letters that tell you not-a-single-frickin’-thing. What’s wrong with testing the waters? Instead of wasting one’s time writing query letters, why not work on that next manuscript instead?
. . . .
There is something very odd about this war of words between successful authors on different sides of a tectonic shift in the publishing world: it doesn’t exist in many similar industries facing the same sort of technological upheaval. You don’t hear Christina Aguilera or Adam Levine knocking indie bands.
Link to the rest at Forbes and thanks to Robert for the tip.
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases.
Good job. But, there’s another side to this (and I’m an indie author, my ebook, “Scalp Mountain,” is sold at Amazon). We authors are drowning in competition. Thousands of ebooks are published on Amazon every month. Getting a book noticed and sold is extremely hard, even if that book finds itself on a bookstore shelf and the difficulty is quadrupled when its not on the shelf. Mysteries, thrillers, romance and erotica have an easier time but if you write historical fiction, like I do, well…
That’s the case everywhere, Julia, in traditional or indie publishing.
Like to jump in on this one and say there is not competition any different than there ever was. If I’m a fantasy reader, I’m going to walk right by the other 100k books in the isles to get to my section. The. I’m browsing. There are hundreds of books sitting spine out and a select few face out. Word of mouth and volume of product is king, and on the Internet, all books are face out. I’m an indie and unknown, but somehow, some way, people are still buying my books.
Agree.
I put my books on Kobo a few weeks ago and already had sales. I belatedly added Kobo links to my website only a week or so ago after seeing the first sales pop up. I’ve no idea how people found the books, but I hope they enjoy them.
Weird how things work. I’ve been up on Kobo for a month on my own and haven’t made a sale yet.
I hear that having 10 or more titles helps. I’m at 4 myself, about to release no. 5.
Volume is the biggest thing, as J.M. said. I barely sold anything till I finished my trilogy. Then the sales started to come. Now that I have 5 books, I’m starting to sell more. Have faith, Vicki. The sales will come.
Publishing is now a free market system. There are a lot of fortunes tied to the old system. “The sky is falling” is an expected response.
An analogy might be airline deregulation and the three decades of financial turmoil for the carriers that followed. Public safety remained high (with one horrid exception) and fares rose less than inflation. The only people who lost were those who over-invested in the regulated business model and refused to embrace change. Not every new airline succeeded but several were born out of that turmoil and continue today.
The same will happen in publishing. Adapt to the free market system or fail.
Peace, Seeley
And as with Hollywood and the music industry, they become more risk averse. Their business model is, “make blockbuster and market the shit out of it and don’t waste time on the little minnows.”
The rejections I’ve received have been either “I really liked it but it didn’t touch me deeply,” (really, maybe the readers will disagree), and, I love this one, “It’s good but I don’t think we can sell a million copies of it.” (because 900K sales would be SUCH a failure).
or 500K
or 250K
or 100K
or enough for it to be considered a ‘bestseller’ a mere 50K!
Larry let me know when you list it I want to be one of those who buys it and disagree with the idiot NYC editors.
Very nice seeing such strong sensible voices in the mainstream media.
The key to seeing what’s going on in publishing for writers is this perspective Howey and Thor put forward: Given the whole of the writer community, more writers are getting more benefit out of indie publishing than they ever did out of traditional publishing.
This is true at nearly every level. The rising tide, in this case, is lifting all boats. Those at the very bottom get a little readership they never would have had and maybe a trickle of money. Those whose work suits a very small niche (and therefore never would have got a penny from traditional publishing) get to find that niche and pay some bills. Those with larger niches might even make a living.
I think that, mathematically speaking, even those at the top could do better, once ebooks are in the majority (as they are in some genres already, I hear.)
I wonder if now that Forbes has used the word ‘Indie’ publishing and means it in regards to self-publishing–not a small press–if that means a certain writing forum that bans the word, will now let us use it?
I don’t understand the resistance by those at the top unless its as simple as abject fear of failure. They’ve already got an audience, and a sizable one, which is something the rest of us have to struggle to build, so they’re already three steps ahead of the curve. I think the economics, as digital gets more prevalent, and it will despite but those on the traditional side are spouting about a slowdown which is pretty much only on their side and I believe is largely due to exorbitant prices forced by the agency scheme, top level authors stand to do significantly better than the current model. Prepublication costs, any way you slice it, are minuscule compared to traditional, and the author generally makes more per book at a third or less of the price. If there is a goldmine to be had in indie publishing, it would be accessed more easily by already top tier authors, who seem to be some of the most vocal anti-indie voices out there, to their own detriment, I believe. Creative freedom, much lower overhead, much higher margins and more direct relationships with your readers…what kind of writer fights against that? I suppose its like elections where a large portion of voters routinely vote against their own interests, usually due to long standing indoctrination by the established system.
I think fear is involved, but honestly, since I saw this same attitude in literary writing in gradschool, I suspect it’s more a matter of… People Are Wrong On The Internet.
(If you haven’t seen the XKCD cartoon I’m making a reference to, check it out here: http://xkcd.com/386/ )
They don’t see self-publishing as a threat to their income or to their audience or lifestyle. It’s a threat to their world view — they know their world and they are the experts in their world and these kids today are crazy to not believe them.
So in the end, it does become a threat as more and more people disbelieve them. And it becomes compulsive. “I gotta keep arguing because people out there are wrong, and that’s important.”
So its an ego thing? That would actually be pretty fitting considering ego is one of the first criticisms thrown at Indies. “These self publishers are so arrogant to think their work deserves to be out there without a publisher validating it” or some such nonsense.
Yeah, though it’s not always “ego” in a judgmental sense — some of the time it’s just the psychological sense.
That is, it isn’t always the result of an arrogant personality. A threat to deeply held beliefs affects our sense of self, so even ordinary or small egos can drive that kind of “defense of status quo.”
But yeah, those with big arrogant egos will be the loudest.
You can’t rule out fear of the new. Top authors have been doing things their way for their entire careers. The new world of indie publishing is frightening for those who don’t understand it. “What? Do everything MYSELF?! You’re kidding! No way!”
I’m with Meryl on this point. And it’s not just the top authors. I’ve lost count of how many mid-list writers have said this to me, until I point out they’ve been doing almost everything already. And they can always sub-contract the cover art and formatting.
Yes, I think this is more to the point. They have built their success in the old paradigm. Self-published successes are a threat. They think they won’t be able to – or shouldn’t HAVE to – do it themselves, but fear that they might. Plus, they’ve been so consistently validated by the machine that they feel like DIY successes somewhat invalidate their own success.
On the other hand, who cares what they think anymore?
Might be a lifeboat mentality. “I was first to the lifeboat, and here these other people should be drowning but they came with their own inflatable lifeboats. How dare they.”
Meh, maybe not the best analogy but I’m onto something. I’ll keep working on it.
I think their fear is that readers will lump them in with the unwashed masses of indie authors. Think about it–their whole lives they have worked to become a ‘published’ author. They may not admit it, but they take pride in that title (as well they should) and now we come along and self-publish and some indie authors are doing not only extremely well as far as sales, but readers LOVE their books.The traditionally published authors feel like they are losing prestige and suddenly their coveted title of ‘published’ author doesn’t mean quite as much anymore.
Yes, this sounds right to me. But as I said above, what they think about it doesn’t matter.
You’re right who say we’ve been doing most of the work already. How long ago did publishing give most of us the task of the lion’s share of the marketing? Which publishers first abandoned the idea that promo was part of the reason for their existence? To my mind, adding cover design and some minimal formatting doesn’t sound like much more than I was already doing.
Do you really think [Big Name Author]‘s cousin really wrote that book? [BNA] loves his paper percentage at Christmas time (“It’s a gift, seriously… I HATE (lalala… LOVE) indie publishing.”) (wink)
Thor makes another dubious assumption when he says “If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract.” Many contracts today or full of unacceptable terms that more and more “good writers of great books” are no longer willing to stand for.
That’s a very good point.
One that can’t be emphasized enough!
It the primary reason that I don’t submit any work to trade pubishers or agents. I’m sure to get fleeced.
I have a list of things you should look for in a good publisher. The big 6 flunks. That does not mean people should not sign with them but have an attorney, fight for a big contract, or do 1 book so you can say hey I was published by and here is my hard copy to show for it. There are a number of good reasons to sign with the big six but few of them have to do with making more money per copy sold, help learning to market your book. Fantastic editing is one of the benefits that may make up for the rest. It still carries weight in some circles. It may get your book in brick and mortar stores which for some is worth more than money in the pocket.
“If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract.”
Should be: “If you’re a good writer and have a great book, why would you want a publishing contract?”
good point
Yeah, like Hatchette adding boilerplate language forcing DRM on books in other territories, trying to continue to expand control over writers into works they don’t even have rights to. It looks like many traditional contracts are getting worse for writers almost by the day. And they weren’t exactly bastions of fair treatment to begin with.
I assume all of you are following Kristen Rusch’s blog about the business of writing. Few contracts are turning in an author’s favor these days: http://kriswrites.com/2012/08/08/the-business-rusch-the-agent-clause-deal-breakers-2012/
I’m not sure I sent my last comment correctly. So, here it is again. If I successfully sent this before, my apologies.
Dan, I believe the resistance has much more to do with prestige than it does with money. Being published by publishing companies has always been prestigious and the market was (although overcrowded) limited. Now, indie authors are capturing some of that prestige. Things are never balanced. One side goes up on the seesaw, one side goes down. Authors published by a company feel that. They had to go through hoops and we didn’t and we’re getting something so they’re angry. Also, they probably feel we’re overcrowding the book market (and I think there’s something to be said for that view). Wow, this is a competitive profession. (If you’ll remember, many “literary” authors have attacked each other in print out of jealousy).
I just want to lock myself in my room and write.
But, oh well, Julia Robb
By the way, I would be interested in reading anti-indie comments but haven’t seen any. If anyone can point me to those kind of comments, or articles, please do. juliarobbmar@aol.com
Sue Grafton, most recently. We had a big long discussion about it here last week, I think. Check the archives.
Oh and our favorite, Ewan Morrison at the Guardian…
And Jodi Picoult, although she was nicer about it; she was just horribly ill-informed.
I actually think this is “the problem” with Thor and Grafton. Last time they paid attention (over a decade ago) it was true that self publishing was a joke for writers that were either lazy or just plain bad.
All I can hear when I read the comments from successful traditional authors who trash indies is fear. If we are so bad at what we do in the self and indie publishing world, why are they noticing us at all? And what are they afraid of? Is it that the traditional publishing world will change and they might not make the cut into the new cool group?
Loss aversion and a touch of inattentional blindness.
Howey is a smart guy and he makes an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of before. When people compare traditional publishing and self publishing they always compare books that are actually published via each route. But to make a fair comparison you have to compare all books that are self published with all books that are SUBMITTED to traditional publishers, not the books that actually make it to shelves. And if you do that the norm for a self published author may be to only make a very small amount of sales, but the norm in traditional publishing would then be to not get published at all. I know which route I think offers a better chance of success.
I’ve been making that point myself — and experiencing it.
Right at the moment, I have two books in various stages of the process. One I submitted (by their request) to a traditional publisher, a little over a year ago. (This was just before someone took me patiently aside and told me about self-publishing, and explained to me that it was raining soup out there and I looked silly without a spoon.) The second was a trunk novel that I dusted off early this year and fixed up for an experimental ebook. (I wanted to make all my beginner’s mistakes on something I didn’t care too much about.)
I released the trunk novel twelve days ago, and so far it has sold a little over 30 copies: not much, but at least it’s out there and people are reading it, and reviews and word of mouth are beginning to happen. Who knows? It may sell another copy or two one day.
The book that I sent to that publisher, meanwhile, is still sitting in the editor’s office, unread as far as I know; I have received no response, and was warned to expect none for at least a year. After that, if the publisher should accept it (for it isn’t just an editor’s call anymore), it will take many more months before I see any of the advance money, and years before it comes out in print.
Suppose that book were to sell for a $3000 advance — it is sadly likely — and be scheduled for release in 2015. If the trunk novel continues selling at its present leisurely walking pace, it will have sold over 2,000 copies by then, and earned a good deal more for me than the advance on the other.
The old fairy tale is not quite right, it appears. In real life, the hare always beats the tortoise — but not if the hare is locked up in the starting gate while the tortoise is plodding down to the finish line.
Actually, I would say that the hare, in this instance is traditional publishing. People go for the advance – all the money at once. And then wait around and dilly and dally (just like the hare) and then rush for this and rush for that. Hurry up and wait, hurry up and wait.
Indie publishing takes the steady approach — much more like the tortoise.
In applying that particular metaphor, I was thinking of good books and bad books as hares and tortoises. And traditional publishing is the starting gate that keeps any number of hares firmly locked up while tortoises go on to win the prize.
I think we’re beginning to see some hares set free to run — good books that don’t have to wait on a publisher’s glacial schedule in order to sell. From what I hear, Wool is such a book, and it will probably end by making its author far more money (and fame) than if it had been traditionally published. My own little screed is a tortoise, no doubt, but it is at least on the track and plodding away, while better books are not permitted to move at all.
The Forbes article is the best piece I’ve seen about independent publishing and the changes to the publishing world. I was impressed with the author’s ability to express both sides of the story. A very balanced and informative piece, for once.
The only thing David Vinjamuri leaves out of his article is the indies who believe in the concept of “one strike and they’re out.” A lot of competition is eliminated by writers giving up when they don’t hit the lottery on that first book through either route to publication.
If I want to compare myself to Amanda Hocking, I’ve got to write thirteen more novels.
The analysis in this article is pretty terrible.
Um.. No. Those numbers don’t make any sense. 5,000 copies at $27 is a gross revenue of $135,000. At best, the publisher will get 50% of that. Let’s call it $70,000. If the initial print run was 50,000 at $2 a copy, the publisher is already in the hole by $30,000 ($70,000 -$100,000 in costs) and none of the publisher’s employees have been paid for the time spent on the book. And I guess the author doesn’t know about returns. Or the fact that the actual retail price of a book isn’t set by the publisher.
No matter how you slice it, the idea that a traditional publisher can make a profit pricing hardback books at $7 list is utter nonsense. The Big 6 publishers do a lot of really dumb things, but the pricing of hardback books isn’t one of them.
The author of the article really doesn’t understand the demand curve in entertainment, either. He’s right that more popular books are worth more than less popular, but he doesn’t get the implications of that and how ebooks change the equation. For paper books, the per unit cost goes down as the value of the unit goes up. But in a competitive marketplace it is very difficult to raise the price of a book as it becomes more popular.
I also thought he messed up his numbers, William.
Just wanted to apologize/explain to everyone here about the math issue.
When I wrote the Forbes piece, I assumed most readers would be the marketing/general business audience that my blog/column usually gets.
Instead I was lucky to receive lots of attention from authors, especially in the Indie community.
The numbers were supposed to illustrate the basic principle that if demand is not constant, total revenue can be greater even if marginal revenue per transaction is lower.
But I simplified to make that clearer. The true math in the example cited would have to include list, wholesale and “street” price. The cost of remainders and the unsold books in a print run should also be included in the marginal cost calculation in this example because the decision on the size of the print run is made at the same time as the pricing decision (for print books).
In addition, we’d have to look at the effect of non-participatory pricing decreases (when the retailer discounts but the publisher doesn’t reduce wholesale to support it) because a lower price would effective cannibalize this support to the profit margin.
So I’m sorry for simplifying what is in reality a tremendously complicated decision. I only meant to reinforce the point that books are not all worth the same amount to readers and that it would be in publishers’ best interest to price accordingly
Good piece and thanks for your visit, David.
I still think your analysis is just wrong. Once a publisher has made the decision to use the hardback format, they are locked into a high list price by long established business practices. The idea that the publisher can vary the price ignores the realities of the industry. Publishers don’t sell direct to consumers and that is really important.
The problem is choosing to print in hardback format. It’s nuts, 90% of the time. But it allows the publishers to keep the big selling authors locked in and thereby protects their oligopoly, so they will fight desperately to maintain the format.
William,
I don’t disagree with you about hardbacks, for fiction at least. However I think you underestimate the desperation of traditional booksellers, who are also struggling with a failing model. As for Amazon, they already understand value pricing…
William, I think your numbers as stated are incorrect. I do agree that the author of the article should have used wholesale -not retail- dollars.
Staying with your suggestion of a 50% margin(I believe it is a bit less) let’s work through the numbers.
5000 units x $27 = $135,000
50% Wholesale = $67,500
COG: 5000 units x $2 = $10,000
Gross Profit: $67,500 – $10,000 = $57,500
50,000 units x $7 = $350,000
50% Wholesale = $175,000
COG: 50,000 units x $2 = $100,000
Gross Profit: $175,000 – $100,000 = $75,500
Technically, the author is correct that the Publisher would generate more profit by lowering the prices as indicated. Is this enough profit for the Publisher to remain in business? Certainly not – based on their current business model.
Nope, you don’t get to print 5000 hardbacks at $2 each. The offset run for 5,000 books and 50,000 books costs pretty much the same because most of the cost is incurred before the first copy is printed.
I think the point is that the publisher isn’t printing 5000 books – the publisher is printing 12,000 or 20,000 or 50,000 but only selling 5,000. They think they’re mitigating risk by keeping the price high and maintaining a reasonable margin. But for certain works with lower perceived value to the consumer (new author, transgenre, slow pace, whatever) they would do better to sell the entire print run at a lower price …
William, you state that the offset run for 5,000 books and 50,0000 books cost pretty much the same because most of the cost is incurred before the first copy is printed. This would mean the 5,000 unit run would cost $20 per book -assuming a $2 per book cost of the 50,000 run.
I have never personally secured a contract for a single run of 5,000 hardcover books. I am basing my post on costs I have found while researching this topic. One such example is a copy of a detailed quote found here:
http://www.blackbirdinc.com/working-together/111-what-books-are-made-of.html
This quote is for a single run for a small firm. I would think a Big 6 Publisher is able to negotiate a better price.
5000 – $2.17
7500 – $1.90
10000 – $1.78
This is a summary of costs, excluding shipping.
I am very interested in this subject. If you can point me to your sources that show actual costs for 5,000 unit print runs then I would be happy to change my position.
Those numbers struck me as off too. Lightning Source prices hardcovers at $7.55 per cover and .013 per page, so a 400 page hardcover will run you around $12.75 to produce. That’s POD, not off-set, but off-set isnt THAT much cheaper.
Odd.
Actually, offset IS that much cheaper. Except for bargain-bin art and photography books, trade publishers never release a hardcover if the total cost of printing and binding will exceed about 10 percent of the MSRP. Yes, the $27 hardcover you hold in your hands from a major trade publisher cost no more than $2.70 to print and bind: such is the power of mass production. It actually costs more to ship an offset-printed hardcover than to produce it in the first place. (Industry figures I read some years ago — I doubt they have changed for the better — put printing and binding at 10 percent of the publisher’s retail price on a hardcover, shipping and handling at 12 percent.)
The trouble is that it costs a good many thousands of dollars to make the plates and print the first copy by traditional methods, and that cost has to be amortized over the entire print run. This is why writers can publish their own ebooks and make money where publishers would lose their shirts: we don’t have the up-front costs to contend with, and don’t need every book to sell thousands of copies just to break even.
I can see how offset would greatly decrease the cost of printing, I didn’t realize that it would also affect the cost of the cover/binding (and the dust cover) as well.
I’m still waiting for that advance order of 1500 books, so I havn’t the need to research offset in depth just yet.
I stand corrected Tom, thanks,
Once, for a short time, I worked for an offset job press. I was nowhere near the sales department, but just to feed the Elephant’s Child I took home copies of some of their catalogues and price lists. It astonished me how much it cost to set up an offset job, and how very little it cost to print each copy thereafter.
That particular press did not do hardcover books, but I can confirm that the industry figures I read were approximately correct for printing, and I imagine they were equally trustworthy for binding.
Thor tells us, “The important role that publishers fill is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract.”
OK. How do we know how much wheat is left behind with the chaff?
We don’t — that’s part of the conundrum that led to this whole indie world in the first place. How many of us who have been slogging away trying to write *something* the larger trade publishers would actually acquire, have gone on to publish these same novels via the small press or e-press route? Quite a few, I’m thinking. Many times writers I know have written perfectly marketable, audience-attracting books, only to sub them to the larger houses and hear, “Oh, we can’t use this, it’s not Amish (or vampire or edgy or Snooki or fill in the blanks with the flavor of the month)!”
I liked that.
I would like to add to this that publishing in paper has also become quite viable now. After Dean’s post on his books, I did four books on Createspace. When I finally slowed down, I realized that only 2 hours had passed. It took me, who has never done a paper book, 2 hours to figure out the basics and create something that is actually not too bad. I’m just wondering if it’s worth doing for short stories? I’ll have to check it out.
Anyway, what I’m saying is we are not just e-book restricted anymore. If we do a CS copy there is zero cost in producing a book that way. It’s virtually no real work whatsoever to make a print book as part of a distribution workflow (bear in mind that I publish a LOT per month, so have a lot of practice, but you can do it too.) My eyes are open and I am pleased!
I should guess that individual short stories probably wouldn’t be worth releasing in POD, just because the cover is a fixed expense no matter how few pages are inside it. A short collection of, say, four or five stories might very well be worth doing.
Dean just started doing short stories in POD.
Here’s his post about it. With photos!
http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=7622
Well, well.
After having been educated by a host of irate indie authors, it appears that Sue Grafton has recanted her insulting remarks about self-publishing. She did so with some humility and grace.
I call bs on her ‘recanting’. She knew what she was doing– she’s a big girl, and is now just embarrased she was called on it in my opinion.
PS I am sorry, in all honesty, I can’t accept her show of humility as sincere. I read her response. It seemed too much, and almost overly apologetic to my ear to be sincere. But I’ve worked in a police station for years and have heard alot of people say alot of things in a lot of ways so it could just be my jaded worldview–but I think not.
It’s much the better response to forgive and forget, to believe in people’s sincerity. Nothing comes from believing the worst. Anger and resentment are the poison of life. I say, good for Ms. Grafton and God bless her and all of us.
I agree with you, Julia. Nothing is to be gained by perpetuating a feud among authors. It used to be that traditional publishing — both Big 6 and small-press — was the only reputable route for an author, and “vanity presses” were the recourse for desperate, unskilled newbies. Many authors who have found great success via the traditional publishers see no reason to jump ship, and they’ve had no reason to explore alternatives. So their opinions of “self-publishing” are colored by its vanity-press past, which is nearly a decade out-of-date.
As time goes on, they’ll learn the truth about the emerging indie options. Sue Grafton appears to be open to that kind of education, and her graceful admission that her earlier comments were made in ignorance of what’s going on should be accepted by us with equal grace.
Sue still writes using pen and paper I believe the article stated. Many older successful writers are still doing things the way they always did. They literally have not been exposed to what is going on today as they are not plugged in. She may never fully come around to understanding but that is ok. She knows her world vies was out of date.
I believe she has done a graceful and sincere appology and we need to move on.
I agree with you nothing is gained by fueding among authors. We need to remember ther is good, bad, and many misinformed on both sides. The best we can do is educate the misinformed respectfully so they can hear and learn.
I agree with you too Julia –especially about “forgive and forget” –but that doesn’t mean I must believe her sincerity in order to forgive. Nor do I feel anger or any kind of resentment towards her (not that you implied that I did, but I feel I ought to point that out since you mentioned it).
I would forgive because we all are human and make mistakes. That’s fine. I’ll gladly forgive on that basis alone any day of the week. It doesn’t require I pretend to believe her in order to forgive. Forgiveness and believing somebody is sincere in their apology can be mutually exclusive. As a very wise old Monk from Mount Athos once told me: “Forgive for peace not for repentance. God alone will require repentance.”
Responding to something with grace doesn’t obligate one to accept the truth of others’ admissions or apologies. One can disagree respectully with just as much grace, as you demonstrated George, good for you.
Cheers,
Terrance
Thanks for posting this. Reading it and reading the comments helped give me a much-needed perspective check. Anyway you do this, it isn’t easy.
I concur E.S. Actually, I think this site is great –so informative.
One person I do believe is sincere (evidenced by the massive posts he gathers on here for everybody day after day) is PG himself! I have gained more knowledge about publishing and indie publishing then I could have otherwise trying to gather this piece or that from all over the net.
I have my browser set for this site as ‘homepage’. I am preparing the 9 novels I wrote that many NYC editors rejected (all of which garnered personal rejection notes along the lines of: “love the story/plot/theme/concept but have to pass–we have too much on our plate” etc). Thanks to this site I’m going to go ahead and put my novels in the online market.
(thank you PG–I wish you had an office here in Toronto.)
We’re drowning in indie books, therefore indie publishing doesn’t/can’t/won’t work?
Wow, somebody alert the Internet that it doesn’t/can’t/won’t work because we are drowning in trillions of webpages uncurated by overpaid New York editors.
How much glue does one have to huff behind the high school football field bleachers to lose sufficient brain cells to be able to mangle logic like these defenders of the publishing industry status quo?