Home » Big Publishing, PG's Thoughts (such as they are), Self-Publishing » Are Self-Publishing Authors Killing the Publishing Industry?

Are Self-Publishing Authors Killing the Publishing Industry?

29 October 2012

From The Huffington Post:

Self-published authors have created a devaluing of the written word, and, some of them are scrambling to see how low they can go to get noticed.

Let us list the ways: 99-cent price point for ebooks. Free ebooks via KDP Select program. Unedited work. Kindle giveaways to get attention and bulk up sales. And lastly, nasty reviews from other authors with the sole purpose of driving down customer ratings.

Why are indie authors selling their work so cheap? In short, mismanaged expectations. Many self-published authors hear about the outliers who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they’ll do anything to try and reach that pinnacle. The plain fact is that most of them never will.

. . . .

Many indie authors are now relying on gimmicks to gain sales. They’re giving away Kindles and iPads in exchange for reviews and as raffles during sales promotions. Traditionally published authors aren’t stooping to these tactics. Why are indies? The short answer is that with over 1 million ebooks published each year, it’s difficult to make a mark.

The lesson may be that if indie authors don’t value their work, chances are no one else will either. Readers want, and deserve, quality books, and they’re used to paying for them. Think about it: pennies for pages didn’t exist before ebooks and self-publishing were viable.

Link to the rest at The Huffington Post

PG would suggest that self-published authors are saving publishing industry by remaking it.

Traditional publishing has been in a long decline with smaller and smaller numbers of books being sold for higher and higher prices.

In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts published Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America. Among its findings:

Literary reading is in dramatic decline with fewer than half of American adults now reading literature.

. . . .

The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers. The rate of decline is increasing and, according to the survey, has nearly tripled in the last decade.

. . . .

“This report documents a national crisis,” Gioia said. “Reading develops a capacity for focused attention and imaginative growth that enriches both private and public life. The decline in reading among every segment of the adult population reflects a general collapse in advanced literacy. To lose this human capacity – and all the diverse benefits it fosters – impoverishes both cultural and civic life.”

While all demographic groups showed declines in literary reading between 1982 and 2002, the survey shows some are dropping more rapidly than others. The overall rate of decline has accelerated from 5 to 14 percent since 1992.

Women read more literature than men do, but the survey indicates literary reading by both genders is declining. Only slightly more than one-third of adult males now read literature. Reading among women is also declining significantly, but at a slower rate.

Link to the rest at National Endowment for the Arts News Room

PG suggests the evidence demonstrates that traditional publishing grossly mishandled literature in the United States as it moved from a diverse collection of small publishers to a few large publishers owned by even larger international media conglomerates that care for nothing more than quarterly revenue and profitability. The combination of price increases substantially outstripping the rate of inflation and a stifling environment of homogenized me-too copycat titles was destroying the culture of reading in the United States.

Indie publishing has reinvigorated American publishing and is rebuilding the publishing industry in a different, author-centric form. Big Publishing has devalued the author of the written word. In a thousand different ways, megapublishers disrespect authors, forgetting that books don’t come from editors and agents and vice-presidents and bribes to the New York Times to obtain favorable reviews.

Twenty-five years from now the creative destruction of legacy publishing we are witnessing today will be regarded as a major cultural turning point, a literary renaissance. We will celebrate countless brilliant books created by authors who would never have been published by the corporate cretins that slithered into control of the levers of Big Publishing.

Big Publishing, PG's Thoughts (such as they are), Self-Publishing

67 Comments to “Are Self-Publishing Authors Killing the Publishing Industry?”

  1. The silliest part is the claim that “traditionally published authors aren’t stooping to these tactics.”

    I’m sorry, I’m laughing too hard to type a response.

    • Yeah, I sort of ran into a mental brick wall there, shouting, “THEY’RE NOT???” What universe is this fellow living in?

      • Totally agree. Traditionally published authors (via their houses) are giving away other merchandise in line with their books’ themes and scads of signed hardcovers. It’s all about the swag. Every major retailer of consumer goods does giveaways. It’s insulting to call self-published authors out for participating in book-marketing.

        Heck, I’m giving away a Nook I bought on sale because it’s FUN! I love the excitement and reaction of the winners. If I sell a few extra books because of it, all the better, but I’m doing it to celebrate an accomplishment. So, nanny nanny boo boo, Huffington Post.

  2. Now off my laughing jag, and able to address the second part that PG wrote:

    That’s so very very true. (I’m assuming that by “literary reading” they’re talking about fiction, poetry and creative nonfic vs. informative nonfic, as opposed to “high lit” vs. “trash.”)

    Publishers and booksellers like to blame TV for drawing readers away from them, but in reality they were so busy chasing after the most lucrative 10 percent of readers, that they PUSHED the rest of the readers out of the poll.

    And the internet (and Amazon) invited those readers back in.

  3. Wow, PG! Not too often that you’re even slightly ranty. Is it the full moon/Monday combo?

    Since his piece is written by an allegedly award-winning indie-publishing expert who names NONE of her books in the bio, I can totally understand the ranty feeling.

    WARNING: Keep beverages away from the kyboard if you read the comments on the HuffPost article.

    • I just found the other half of my pill. I’m sure I’ll feel better soon, Suzan. 🙂

      • Never mind the second half.
        Try going a day without either half. Then tell us what you *really* think.
        You could sell tickets. Lots of ’em.

  4. The short answer is: Yes, I hope we bloody are.

  5. Bartholomew Thockmorton

    Miss Bicklemeyer…please take a letter…

    “My dearest Huffington Post…

    Screw you!!!!”

    Humbly yours,

  6. Totally agree with this post, I’m glad you wrote it. Good quality work will spread so than ever if people are given access to more writing. Sure there might be more rubbish out there, but that just gives readers the opportunity to decide what’s worth reading, as opposed to publishers deciding for them.

  7. I would suggest that self-published authors were swarming the internet long before KDP Select.

    The Huffington Post might serve as a good example of said.

    Dan Becker

  8. Well, I’m not sure what the goal of this article was. The author is an independent publishing advocate, so I think – I’m not sure – but I think it makes her mad that people are pricing their books so low.

    But doesn’t she understand that the title of this article hurts her ultimate cause and reinforces the stigma? She will garner more negative and hostile feedback from indies on this, and her point will be completely lost. She should have thought twice before writing this, and come from a more rational place, rather than an angry one.

    Your commentary, P.G., is spot on. I agree this will be seen as a literary renaissance that will most likely lead to a cultural one. The damage that has been done to society by slowing the author’s voice to a trickle, and by making sure that many authors voices were silent, is immeasurable.

    The impact of people’s voices finally being free to speak will be profound.

    • I think she is probably being more wiley then that:

      She’s intentionally reinforcing the stigma so that suckers are more likely to hire her to help them do it “right.”

      Fear sells.

      • Whoops, now that I’ve read her whole article, I don’t think that’s what’s going on at all. (I admit, I was more interested in the stuff PG said at the bottom of the post.)

        I agree with much of what she says. It really sounds like an indie author who is trying to shake some reality into other indie authors.

    • This is bizarre… I follow this woman in twitter and I agree with what you said- she definitely must want others to keep their prices higher… and that might be because she writes literary fiction vs more popular genre fiction. Just a thought, since typically a literary novel isn’t as much of a seller. BTW I don’t know if she told you, but Anthea’s post about trad pub is up.

  9. The claim from the indie author is nonsense. I responded over at HuffPo when it was posted last week and feel no need to revisit.

    The second bit is more interesting.

    (Camille asked above what the report defined as liturature. The question was whether they’ve read a novel, short story, play, or poetry in the specified time period.)

    With all due respect, I think PassiveGuy’s theory/rant is flawed. The NEA report seems to have hit the (natural?) ebb tide of reading, and the cycle already seemed to be reversing itself when that report was issued. For the rest of the story, read this:


    Basically, kids these days are reading more than older generations, and this directional swing preceded the 2007 rise of self-publishing by about 10 years.

    • However, I would propose that PG’s theory is still correct. There are two parts to it.

      1.) The practices of traditional publishing (and bookselling) killed reading? Absolutely correct. I could go into a lot more, but it would take pages and pages, because there has been a tremendous amount of evidence and study that the choking down of choice drove consumers away from buying new books.

      2.) Is the resurgence caused by self-publishing? No, but that isn’t what PG said either. The resurgence is clearly due to the maturation of the internet and social media and blogging. Let’s not forget that there has been a boom in fiction and poetry and other forms online for 7-8 years now. Also, online retailers and auction sites and such have made a much wider variety of books available to people via used books and small press.

      The rise of self-publishing is just a portion of the actual revolution. The bulk of reading today is going unmeasured, because the publishing industry (and as a result, the press) isn’t interested in anything outside its own domain.

      • Hm. I’m not sure how you got that out of what PG said in regards to the 2004 survey. I quote:

        “PG suggests the evidence demonstrates that traditional publishing grossly mishandled literature in the United States as it moved from a diverse collection of small publishers to a few large publishers owned by even larger international media conglomerates that care for nothing more than quarterly revenue and profitability.”

        I suggest the evidence shows no such thing based on the McSweeney article which indicates that reading was on the rise again well before (late 90s) these other factors could have become a factor. The simplest explanation seems to be what McSweeney’s came up with–big publishing managed to put out something that this generation wanted to read (Potter) and they responded in droves and then big publishing recognized the market and continue to feed it with more titles and the level of reading snowballed. The improved access to books from the ebook and self-pub certainly won’t hurt here, but it should not be given undue credit just like it should not accept undue hyperbolic criticism that it’s killing publishing either.

        • The study PG cited may suggest no such thing, but I am looking at the larger picture; multiple studies and trends that have been happening for decades, not just the past ten years. This has been going on particularly since the eighties, and the advent of the huge distributors like B&N and Borders.

          And perhaps I am presuming to much to think that PG was also taking a big picture view, but that’s how I read it.

          You can credit the increase in reading in the younger generation to smart moves on the part of the publishing industry if you like, but there is no doubt that the publishing industry utterly bungled the handling of the previous generation.

          IMHO, though, people seriously underestimate the affect the internet has had on literacy and preference for reading in all age groups, but particularly the young.

          A lesser factor, but still one which seems wildly overlooked, is the effect Amazon had when they started allowing individuals to sell used books. The specific thing that people in publishing missed — even smart people — was that what Amazon did, in one huge swift blow, was fill the void that publishers had left open for 15 years or more. Suddenly you didn’t have to hunt for OOP midlist books any more.

          Interestingly, that’s something that the new generation will never understand, because people in their twenties today never have had the problems with distribution that we had in the late eighties and nineties. It just isn’t on their radar. They hear stories from authors about the nightmare of having the second book in a trilogy go out of print, but not the first and third, and they think it’s a story about how badly publishers treated authors. And they may think they understand the experience of spending years searching for a rare collectable book….

          But they don’t understand how not that long ago, that’s what you might have to do to find the majority of current books you wanted to read: hunt for it in libraries, and garage sales. Trade hunt lists with out of town friends.

    • That may be, but I know that I buy five times as many books as I did just two years ago!

  10. The original post is actually from Indiereader, HuffPost picked it up. Melissa Foster’s links can be found on the original post. She is a relevant and successful indie author. I’ve exchanged plenty of emails/FB posts with her.

    As much as we don’t want to hear it, and as much as she engaged in hyperbole (“killing the industry” is a bit much), there are a LOT of unwashed books out there. I hosted a dinner party last night where a topic came up (readers, not writers): How do you find anything worthwhile in KDP Select? The majority opinion was to avoid anything less than $2-3 or rely on friends’ reviews.

    I believe the market will self-correct in the next year~ when many of the get-rich-quick hopefuls bail out. In the mean time, they make it tough for serious indies to find traction.

    Peace, Seeley

    • Yes, there is a lot of unwashed out there. (And there always has been.) However, the interesting part of your comment to me was the following question:

      “How do you find anything worthwhile in KDP Select?”

      You don’t. That’s the problem. The Selects program encourages indies, especially marginal indies who are desperate for readers, to self-select into the program. It also causes people who have a wide appeal and are selling books elsewhere to self-select OUT of the program because they can’t afford to give exclusivity.

      There are some good books in there… but the odds of finding worthwhile books are in Selects are, by the very nature of the program, worse than in the general internet at large.

      All marketing tricks will always do this. If you want to find a worthwhile product, stay away from spam. Stay away from anything that people can use to promote their book by just pushing a button. It’s a dreck magnet.

      That doesn’t make the dreck relevant to anything else, though.

    • I rely heavily in my friends recommendations for e-books. I have a gigantic amount of friends who only read on their kindles these days. But, for those who don’t it can be harder to sort the good from the bad.

  11. I can’t respond to this without swearing. A lot.

  12. PG, love your comments. I’m just home from an incredible writing/industry conference (ECWC in Seattle) and the amount of enthusiasm and energy among the authors there was great. Mostly, people recognize we have *options* and that’s incredibly freeing and invigorating. There’s no better time to be an author. 🙂

    • I’m curious how you feel about the HP article Anthea?

      • Well, now that you ask… 😉 I think she’s cherry picking. All kinds of authors do all kinds of things for visibility – both trad and indie.

        Self-published authors have the luxury of running special sales and loss leaders to introduce readers to their work. I don’t think that’s devaluing the product. I also think that any author who consistently sells *all* their titles at .99 cents is going to give it up and go home after a certain point.

        And her point about all the new work being released? EVERYBODY has to compete with that – it’s not just self-published authors. We’re all swimming in the same ocean. Write a great book, put a great cover on it, make sure the blurb is excellent, price it right, repeat… 😉

  13. Regarding the decline of reading in America. It’s more than just Big Publishing grinding out mediocre, cookie-cutter, lowest-common-denominator, mega-best-seller dreck (same thing is happening in films and other media, too). Of course, this plays a big part. But it’s the general decline of literacy itself that, IMHO, is the single biggest factor.

    As a writer and editor, I’m appalled by this trend. It’s more than poor spelling (easily remedied by spell checkers, but you gotta care enough to run one) and bad grammar. It’s a lack of cognitive organization, as well as scant ability to do critical thought and analysis — which isn’t being taught much in schools anymore.

    As bad as this all is in the general population, it’s much worse with young people. Professor Mark Bauerlein’s “The Dumbest Generation” examines this in detail.

    I don’t see much effort to counter this trend, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of the US. What I see happening already is a growing gap between the “highly literate” and the, um, “less literate” in society and in the workplace.

    Those who write well and can read well, with expanded comprehension, will outpace those who cannot. That’s good news, I suppose, for writers and editors. I make my day-job living by business editing, and don’t see my skill set’s value fading anytime soon, but I still worry about the future and have concerns for the present.

    • Banishing multiple choice tests in favor of having students explain and draw conclusions in writing. Works well in other democracies.

  14. Someone should let the librarians know that “free” devalues the written word. I’m sure they’d like to hear that they’re destroying publishing by letting people read without paying for it.

    • Just because you pay for books borrowed from libraries via taxes and not by an admission or rental fee doesn’t mean libraries, or their contents are ‘free’.

      Libraries are a brilliant demonstration of society creating a communal learning experience. But they pay for books, pay librarians, pay electric bills, etc and are funded by the smart citizens of that community.

      Peace, Seeley

      • “Readers want, and deserve, quality books, and they’re used to paying for them. Think about it: pennies for pages didn’t exist before ebooks and self-publishing were viable.

        Does this mean that self-published authors are killing the publishing industry? Yes, in a sense it does.” — quote from the HuffPo article

        Actually, this reader is used to using a library. If the library pays $20 for a hardcover and 20 people read it, each “read” costs about $1. Same as a .99 ebook. Such reading hasn’t destroyed the publishing industry. I do actually know that libraries buy their books. 🙂

        • I was thinking that, too. She’s obviously never been to a used book sale, either. I go to them every chance I get, long before Amazon or ebooks even existed. I routinely pay 25 or 50 cents for a paperback, a buck or two (at most) for hardcovers. My math’s a little rusty, but I’m pretty sure that works out to even less pennies for pages than 99 cent ebooks. Somehow the industry survived.

  15. Um, instead of looking at the 2004 survey from the National Endowment of the Arts, why not look at the 2009, which opens with, “For the first time in more than 25 years, American adults are reading more literature, according to a new study by the National Endowment for the Arts. Reading on the Rise documents a definitive increase in rates and numbers of American adults who read literature, with the biggest increases among young adults, ages 18-24. This new growth reverses two decades of downward trends cited previously in NEA reports such as Reading at Risk and To Read or Not To Read.” http://www.nea.gov/news/news09/readingonrise.html

    I’d also argue with the whole “literary” label — yes, maybe people are reading less “literary” fiction but does that matter if genre fiction has grown increasingly interesting and literary itself? When authors like Margaret Atwood, Neil Gaiman, Ursula LeGuin are genre, what does it really mean to be literary? But I think I’ll go write a novel instead!

  16. Great piece. I totally agree with the notion that self published authors are ‘remaking’ the industry rather than devaluing it. I find the whole concept of devaluing quite bizarre considering libraries have been around for years.

    Also, just some food for thought – I enrolled a short story in KDP Select. Because of Select, over 6,000 more people have downloaded my works than would have done otherwise. Sure, they’ve grabbed it for free, but I don’t see that as ‘devaluing’ my work – I see it as a wise way of increasing visibility. Maybe they’ll never read my stuff again. There’s always the chance they will, though, and one that is well worth taking the ‘free’ route for.

  17. Just one thing epitomizes the health and wealth of the self-publishing boom – the revival of the short story (which the mainstream publishing industry had left to die an agonizing death). Thank you self-publishing.

  18. I tend to read between the lines. The problem is the low cost of e-books offered by Indie authors hurt the big publishers. They cannot sell a book for 99 cents and make a profit. Competition has upset the apple cart, and they’re still rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Looked at Penguin Random House merger.
    What’s in a price? Shouldn’t the low price say, I’m new and I’m learning? Or take a chance on me, I want to be discovered? Or e-books should not be expensive? It cost very little to produce them. Instead they hide behind elitism, claiming that low priced books are trash. I actually feel sorry for them, the hordes of Indie writers have enter the palace, and there are more of them coming in.
    Good luck!

  19. “Many indie authors are now relying on gimmicks to gain sales. They’re giving away Kindles and iPads in exchange for reviews and as raffles during sales promotions.”


    “Many—-giving away Kindles and Ipads”


    Anyone care to point me towards this generous indie author soul.

    Danged if I dun seen one yet.

    Some of these pub hounds are just lying ****s.


    • Definitely a big exaggeration. The giveaways I’ve seen have all been lotteries, and the prizes were things like a $25 Amazon gift card.

    • I’ll write a nice review for anyone who gives me a Kindle or an iPad, Brendan.

      Something like, “I’ll never forget this book or its author.” 🙂

    • Actually, I won my Kindle from an author who awarded it to the person who posted a review in the most places. I posted it in 13 places. You need to hang out with more romance authors. They do this sort of thing fairly frequently.

  20. Rather than the cover price, let’s analyze ebook pricing in terms of the royalty. A self-published ebook priced between $.99 and $1.99 yields approximately the same royalty as a “traditional” MMPB deal. Adjusted for inflation, the “dimestore novel” should today cost around $2.99. A $2.99 ebook yields a royalty once only reserved for hardcover editions. It seems to me that “devaluing” the written word isn’t the problem so much as price gouging.

  21. Amen, PG. Loved your closing comments.

  22. I really, really like it when PG takes off the gloves.

  23. “We will celebrate countless brilliant books created by authors who would never have been published by the corporate cretins that slithered into control of the levers of Big Publishing.”

    Yes! This!

  24. “Traditionally published authors aren’t stooping to these tactics.”



  25. Twenty-five years from now the creative destruction of legacy publishing we are witnessing today will be regarded as a major cultural turning point, a literary renaissance. We will celebrate countless brilliant books created by authors who would never have been published by the corporate cretins that slithered into control of the levers of Big Publishing.

    Here! Here!

    While I agree that there is a lot of bad self-published work out there, I also believe, like any other free market system, the cream will rise to the top as the market sorts itself out. It’ll take some time, decades maybe, which is why writers who are willing and able to write consistently and well will survive will good reputations and the dross will disappear. Just like any other system.

    Personally, I love it! Enough rejection for me by stodgy old types who never knew what to do with my work. But then, people rarely know what to do with me, and yet… I have many friends and loyal readers I gained as I build an online following before I published. The public (not tweens) wants diversity, not more Twilight. *cough* Did I say that aloud?*

  26. So when the Big 6+ collude to not price below $9.99 because doing otherwise will devalue print, that’s against the law. But when an author advocates indies as a whole not price below $2.99 because it will devalue the written word, that’s acceptable. Where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed?

    I’m at a loss as to how $2.99 was arrived at as being a “reasonable” price that places sufficient value on a book. Where’s the data to back this up as being the optimum minimum price? Why isn’t it $3.49 or $4.67? Or $2.68? Standard royalty segregation adopted by all the major players notwithstanding, can anyone point to the economic factors that pinpoint $2.99 as being the barrier that must not be crossed?

    If not, then 99c is just as arbitrary a figure as $2.99. Or the Big 6’s $9.99. Perhaps Apple was right all along. Perhaps the call to action should be for all indies to price their work $9.99 or above. Or is there a P&L spreadsheet floating around about this that I somehow missed seeing?

    What does the market want and what will it bear? Those should be the guidelines – guidelines that can and will fluctuate. It’s not a race to the bottom. It’s simply a race to remain relevant in a changing market.

    • The difference is that five publishers with collective control over the majority of trade publishing in the US coordinated their efforts to increase prices paid by consumers for ebooks. That’s against the law.

      As much as he/she might like to control prices, an author does not have the power to do so.

    • There is a psychological threshold known as “the price of a sandwich”. This is usually quantified as the price of a “Big Mac” in your local currency. Items below the cost of a sandwich are seen as easy impulse buys. $2.99 is comfortably below that threshold.

    • I completely agree, and I think writers sometimes don’t realize how much wiggle room they have. Forget the “rules”–you charge whatever works! Sometimes it’s less, sometimes it’s more. If promotions help, you use them! Pricing is an art, not a science.

    • Mostly it’s because at $2.99 the royalty rate at Amazon kicks up from 35% to 70%.

      • But the royalty rate is still an artifice. Is a 35% royalty rate a devaluation when historically that’s more than what most authors have ever received? I’m seriously trying to understand why Melissa believes $2.99 is a “reasonable” price but 99c isn’t. A 6% royalty on a $4.99 paperback yields $0.30. Up that to an 8% rate then subtract an agent’s 15% share and the author earns $0.339. Where’s the outcry over the cheap paperbacks Wal-Mart and Costco sell? Surely that’s been devaluing the worth of the written word for decades. But wouldn’t most authors gladly abase themselves to get their books into the big discount stores?

        I’m not debating what is or isn’t a fair royalty rate. What I’m asking is: Is it the royalty the author earns per book, the aggregate a book makes the author no matter the price, or the price the customer pays that gives value to the written word? Does a reader value the content of Part 3 of a series they love that they found in a rummage sale for 50c less than the content of Parts 1 and 2 that they paid $10 each for?

        We have a book that’s sold 7000 copies in the past week at 99c. And we gave away 46,000 copies free before that. We’ve sold 700 copies of 4 other books priced $2.99-3.98 in the same time period (we have many more books on offer, but let’s use these 4 for the example). The 99c book has made $2450 (+ another $800 in borrows, but let’s leave that out of the equation for the moment). The other 4 books together have earned about $1700 outside of borrows.

        From an economic standpoint, please explain how the 99c book’s content (the OP’s “written word”) has been devalued in relation to the sales from the rest of the inventory. *Could* we have sold fewer books at a higher price and earned more on our 99c book? Perhaps. But the same argument can be made for the 700 copies of the higher-priced books. We can keep upping the price on everything until we reach the price point where the market cries “Enough!”

        Ahh, but maybe our author is an outlier. If so, how do you prove that? Has anyone other than the distributors aggregated the sales of 99c books and compared them to the aggregated sales of books at other price points? I have little doubt Amazon is driving prices higher through how it displays product via its popularity list algorithms (and I’ve discussed the data that backs this up at length). But without understanding the motive behind the execution, we really can’t use that behavior to assume Amazon is driving toward a “reasonable” price that doesn’t devalue the written word.

        Feelings and opinions are great to have; I just like to see the data that backs them up.

  27. “PG would suggest that self-published authors are saving publishing industry by remaking it.”

    I’m with you 100% on that PG! =o)

  28. The publishing industry produces books and gets them to consumers. Anyone think that will stop?

  29. 0,99-cent books is a promotional tool and it doesn’t mean the writer is discrediting his work. ‘Earning attention and trust.’ http://tmblr.co/Zgo_VwWCrUPz

  30. Thanks, PG, for that final paragraph. I believe it, but if I put it that strongly, it looks like sour grapes.

    Yes, I’ve been rejected by the traditional publishers and agents.

    Yes, I’m enjoying making money from actual readers.

    Yes, I agree we’re on the verge of a reading revolution — and in all the arts. Writing just happens to have the lowest barrier entry (compared to music and movies, that is).

  31. I price my books @ $2.99 – Why? Because it’s an E-Book, not an actual book you can carry around or take to a signing and get autographed. I also do it because of the economics at the time. Many people are out of work and or have limited funds available. I made the decision to make my books available to everyone at a great price. Plus, I already have money so I do not publish my books with thoughts of being a millionaire. I never woke up a day in my life thinking that I wanted to be a writer. I just woke up one day and realized that I write a lot. I didn’t choose it, it chose me. That being said, I do take writing seriously. I don’t think self publishing authors are hurting the industry, I think it’s just a case of “everything has been done already”. It’s hard to come up with original ideas anymore. That and the fact that it is these publishers themselves who are hurting the industry by being more concerned with the “cha-ching” rather than the art. Not that I blame them, they have to approach it as a business, but a little compromise to the art by their part would go a long way, Not to mention, the “Big Six” scandel hasn’t exactly put publishing in a postive light.

  32. ” We will celebrate countless brilliant books created by authors who would never have been published by the corporate cretins that slithered into control of the levers of Big Publishing.”

    PG you’re not just a lawyer, you’re a poet. I’m cutting/pasting that on my WALL OF INSPIRING QUOTES.

    thank you!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.