Traditional v. Self-Publishing: A Suggestion | Part 1
How long will this dumb debate go on? Independent publishing is here to stay. Accept it graciously and move on. Start seeing independent publishing for all the possibilities it offers -- and by that I do not mean a plethora of unedited, unreadable, indigestible books. I do mean a mature partnership between publishers and authors, one very different from the decidedly imbalanced adult-child relationship we now have.
As many of you know, I've been self-published, traditionally published, and independently published: I first self-published Harlem Redux; then sold the book to Simon & Schuster (which had originally rejected it); then set up my own publishing imprint and independently published Darkness and the Devil Behind Me. So I feel comfortable with both traditional and independent publishing. I suppose this is why I find the anger and fury directed toward self-publishing to be so ... well, amazing. And amazingly short-sighted.
Instead of being pitted against one another, loyalists on both sides should take a step back and see what how they can work together. Perhaps we should first take a look at the difficulties besetting both means of bringing a book to print.
The Traditional Method and Its Problems
We all know the drill: The writer seeks an agent (faces repeated rejection); the agent sells the manuscript (facing repeated rejection); the publisher prints and distributes the book (promising booksellers all kinds of discounts); booksellers end up with too much stock and return the books; the books are pulped and everyone (including the trees) lose out. This method of bringing books to market is wasteful, costly and time-consuming. For the writer, it often means a loss of creative control over the work and lack of transparency in sales. For the publisher and bookseller, it means a significant cash investment. End result: Lots of money spent and often relatively few sales.
The Independent Method and Its Problems
By now, we all know this, too: In addition to the usual problems facing all books hitting the marketplace, the self-published book faces a wall of prejudice. People -- and by this I mean traditional reviewers and often other writers -- often wrongly assume that if a book is self-published, then it's trash, something that would have found a place with a traditional publisher if it was worth reading.
We also know that writers who decide to self-publish can fall victim to schemes and end up spending money they can never realistically hope to recoup. Then, there are problems with distribution and promotion. Writers working alone simply don't have the power and push that a big house could provide. End result: Lots of money spent and often relatively few sales.
Isn't it amazing how both venues so often lead to the same result? In other words, we're all in the same boat. So why are we fighting?
Of course, everyone has a different story. Some writers have experienced splendid success going the traditional route. Others can say the same with self-publication. The former keep warning the latter that self-publication will "ruin" any hopes of a "real" publication; the latter look at the former and rejoice in their new-found freedom, their independence from subjugation to the whims and fancies of large publishers.
On an aside, both sides seem to be forgetting that each writer has the right to follow his or her own path. First and foremost, we should be supporting one another instead of tearing each other down. Second -- and this is the point of this post -- why don't we even take it a step further and see how both can enjoy the benefits of independent publication?
As many of you know, I've been self-published, traditionally published, and independently published: I first self-published Harlem Redux; then sold the book to Simon & Schuster (which had originally rejected it); then set up my own publishing imprint and independently published Darkness and the Devil Behind Me. So I feel comfortable with both traditional and independent publishing. I suppose this is why I find the anger and fury directed toward self-publishing to be so ... well, amazing. And amazingly short-sighted.
Instead of being pitted against one another, loyalists on both sides should take a step back and see what how they can work together. Perhaps we should first take a look at the difficulties besetting both means of bringing a book to print.
The Traditional Method and Its Problems
We all know the drill: The writer seeks an agent (faces repeated rejection); the agent sells the manuscript (facing repeated rejection); the publisher prints and distributes the book (promising booksellers all kinds of discounts); booksellers end up with too much stock and return the books; the books are pulped and everyone (including the trees) lose out. This method of bringing books to market is wasteful, costly and time-consuming. For the writer, it often means a loss of creative control over the work and lack of transparency in sales. For the publisher and bookseller, it means a significant cash investment. End result: Lots of money spent and often relatively few sales.
The Independent Method and Its Problems
By now, we all know this, too: In addition to the usual problems facing all books hitting the marketplace, the self-published book faces a wall of prejudice. People -- and by this I mean traditional reviewers and often other writers -- often wrongly assume that if a book is self-published, then it's trash, something that would have found a place with a traditional publisher if it was worth reading.
We also know that writers who decide to self-publish can fall victim to schemes and end up spending money they can never realistically hope to recoup. Then, there are problems with distribution and promotion. Writers working alone simply don't have the power and push that a big house could provide. End result: Lots of money spent and often relatively few sales.
Isn't it amazing how both venues so often lead to the same result? In other words, we're all in the same boat. So why are we fighting?
Of course, everyone has a different story. Some writers have experienced splendid success going the traditional route. Others can say the same with self-publication. The former keep warning the latter that self-publication will "ruin" any hopes of a "real" publication; the latter look at the former and rejoice in their new-found freedom, their independence from subjugation to the whims and fancies of large publishers.
On an aside, both sides seem to be forgetting that each writer has the right to follow his or her own path. First and foremost, we should be supporting one another instead of tearing each other down. Second -- and this is the point of this post -- why don't we even take it a step further and see how both can enjoy the benefits of independent publication?
0 comments:
Post a Comment