I was genuinely surprised by the response to last week’s post Here’s Why You Should Wait Before Self-Publishing Your Novel. 
When I started writing (back in 2005), self-publishing was still relatively new and highly stigmatized. Not only has the technology revolutionized the industry, much of the self-publishing stigma has been shed. But if that post is any indication, something else has developed along the way — a contempt for traditional publishing. Nowadays, the author who chooses to self-publish will find a sizable militia waiting to arm them for defense of their ever-expanding turf.
And defend it, they do.
For instance, writer friend Patrick Todoroff immediately countered my post on his website with You take the high road… and The high road — part two. From the latter, Pat wrote:
I hope I’m reading it wrong but this thread at deCompose sure smells of old assumptions to me. So not only are self-pubbed works intrinsically sub par, self-pubbed writers rash and impatient, but somehow the decision to self-publish is karmic suicide and negates the agent/big house option. So real writers wait and go traditional? I’m half-looking for the writer equivalent to the Purity Ring now.
For the record, I purchased Patrick’s novel Running Black a while back, although I haven’t read it yet. What I have read, however, is quality writing. As is Patrick’s artwork for his books. However, I don’t think the above paragraph is very fair to my position.
Later on in the day, I began getting a few links from THIS POST on J.A. Konrath’s site, where my post was linked in THIS COMMENT:
If you needed any more proof that there are simply not enough faces left on planet earth to sufficiently palm in dismay, here are the latest “best” reason’s to avoid self-publishing:
[Link to my post]
I believe I gave myself a concussion reading this in a brave attempt to pull off the rare facepalm headdesk combo.
That comment was followed by this one:
Holy shit, that is sad. 10 freaking years and she’s celebrating that someone finally gave her some scraps? Holy crap, 10 years.
It boggles my mind. And now she’s gonna get 17.5% royalties? How could you let her do that? I thought she was your friend?
If Jessica was my friend I’d slap her and tell her to wake the hell up. Ego makes you wait 10 years for a “deal”. Tenacity makes you go sell that shit yourself and move on to the next book.
Both comments were Anonymous.
Anyway, I was taken aback by the response to that post and spent some time marinating. Was I that off base? Is my assertion completely unfounded? Do most authors no longer consider traditional publishing the ideal? Is it really better to wait to be published? Even bigger — Have I drank the Kool Aid of the dying Industry and become a mindless shill?
I confess, there were some things about that post which were flawed and short-sighted. I should not have used my friend Jessica Dotta’s contract as a springboard to broach the subject of self-publishing. I should have simply congratulated her. She deserves it. This was my big mistake, as I see it. And after listening to dissenters, I also have to wonder that there’s more benefits to self-publishing than I’m aware of. Or, at least, that I portrayed. Point taken.
Also, that post made me reconsider a Comment Policy. I approach the comments liberally here; I don’t feel the need to correct or remark on everything someone says here. I enjoy give-and-take, and definitely believe there’s two sides to every story. The problem is, as a result, I sometimes get labeled with having said things — at least, condoned things — that I didn’t. Which is why some of the dissenters seemed to charge me with saying things like “self-pubbed works [are] intrinsically sub par” or ” the decision to self-publish is karmic suicide and negates the agent/big house option.” Which I don’t believe. So perhaps part of the problem was that I didn’t distance myself enough from certain comments.
Still, I was surprised by the level of rhetoric that post inspired.
After several days of self-flagellation, some things happened to make me surrender my birch bough.
First, I stumbled upon a post by Wendy Lawton, an agent with Books and Such, the agency that represents me. Her post, Self-Pubbed Author Seeks Agent, seemed to touch similar nerves as mine. (At this writing, that post is pushing 130 comments.) Not only did Wendy say some of the same things as me, albeit more eloquently, she also received pushback for what some perceived as dissing self-publishing. Wendy wrote:
Some of the other things that work against you if you self-pub and then seek an agent and traditional publisher:
- You’ve demonstrated the vigor of your own platform. It’s now quantifiable. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how vigorously the book sold.
- Building a significant literary career takes perseverance. Some agents and publishers view the self-pubbed author as one who lacks the patience to build slowly and strategically.
- When you make a choice to go it alone, some professionals could see it as a maverick attitude. Does it denigrate what a whole team brings to the process?
All that said, there are some books meant to be self-published…
I’m just saying. . . self-pubbing or self-ePubbing your book may not be putting your best foot forward if your goal is to build a traditional literary career.
Wendy’s been at this a lot longer than me. Of course, some will see her as part of the Machine. I though her post was fair. Nevertheless, by the second comment, Wendy was defending herself: “I have nothing against self-pubbed books.”
*Sigh.*
Must any criticism of self-publishing be construed as a blanket denunciation of the entire self-publishing industry?
Then, writer / reviewer Kevin Lucia sent me a link to this interview with Shane Staley, indie publisher and editor:
From my slush pile, sometimes it’s only a matter of weeks before a rejection letter goes out to an author until I see the same author marketing the manuscript as a Kindle edition. The phrase “I’m now a published author” has never been so undermining to real authors. The problem here is that the book I rejected wasn’t just OK or a “not-my-cup-of-tea” rejection, it was on every level “not-meant-to-be-published-or-consumed-by-any-living-thing” bad.
Back when I first started writing, I thought I was supremely talented. What I didn’t realize is that my fiction was actually pure CRAP. And lucky for me I began writing in times when you had to EARN your publication credits, as editors rejected me countless times (and rightly so) until I was forced to actually learn my craft.
If back when I started writing, there was such an easy option to self-publish like there is now, I’m afraid my inexperienced, ignorant and impatient self would have jumped at the chance at self-publication and the experiment would have set me back years or possibly worse. First impressions are HUGE in this market. So when a new author self-publishes without doing the work to develop their craft, they will ultimately suffer for it. The bona fide trunk stories that are being self-published today will be the first and last many readers will ever pick up. And it’s a shame because I see many new authors who have undeveloped potential out there. Unfortunately, their raw self-published works are what readers are getting.
There’s simply no substitution for hard work and no short cuts in the long road to being an author who matters. (bold mine)
Once again, I suppose Shane can be accused of being part of the Machine. As for me, I find solace in the fact that I’m not as “out there” as my detractors initially made me feel. Staley is echoing my sentiments — sentiments I got ripped for! I concluded that post this way:
The problem with contemporary writers is that we don’t give our stories enough time to go unnoticed. We get antsy, impatient, gripe about the system, and concede to self publish. Usually, way too soon.
The question you should ask yourself is this, Are you willing to wait 10 years? Is your story good enough, your writing strong enough, to endure multiple slush piles? Is your perseverance so dogged, your goal so fixed, that no amount of rejection can deter you? Are you willing to wait?
Does this mean ALL those who are self-published are antsy, impatient, etc.? No. Does this mean waiting to publish is ALWAYS the right thing to do? No. Does this mean that traditional publishing is superior in EVERY way to self-publishing? No. Does this mean self-publishing is categorically inferior to traditional publishing? No. Does this mean trade publishers don’t publish junk. No.
No.No.No.No.No.
Dear defenders of self publishing: Not everyone who sees traditional publishing as superior to self-publishing does so on the grounds that ALL self-published novels are crap. Not everyone who sees traditional publishing as superior to self-publishing does so on the grounds that ALL self-published authors are impatient hacks.
So please, please, please stop trying to characterize my arguments that way.
My main point in that post was that waiting is a virtue for writers. Could I have said that better, clearer? Absolutely. But I still believe that. I believe that self-publishing has created a climate where an author can rush work into print prematurely.
That’s it. That’s what I believe. Am I THAT off-base?
Anyway, it’s left me wondering if this civil war between traditional publishing and self-publishing isn’t getting out of hand. Our defense of self-publishing has made us myopic; we’re so reactive, so eager to justify our decisions to self-publish that we portray any criticism as a personal attack and mischaracterize all critique as baseless. On the other hand, perhaps people like me who were groomed pre-self-publishing, need to step back and take a better look at the dinosaur we’re riding, and take care to avoid blanket condemnations of a new, burgeoning, and very promising industry.
Both extremes — blanket contempt for traditional publishing and blanket contempt for self-publishing — just seem misguided.
It’s funny, when you said the word ‘contempt’ up there, it actually made me think of this recent post by PG: thepassivevoice.com/03/2012/how-to-read-a-book-contract-contempt-2/
I honestly think a lot of the anger from self publishing (or rather against traditional) is coming from stories like that being brought to light–I’m seeing more and more of that sort of thing as I browse writers’ blogs lately, and I’ll admit it’s turning my stomach a little toward current publishers. I know not all traditional publishers are like that (just as you admit that not all self-pubbed work is bad), but it’s apparently it’s more widespread than people would like to believe.
Either way, it’s a nasty conflict–and as someone just about ready to jump into the pool, it’s become imperative to keep an eye on both sides just to make sure there’s water beneath me.
And on a side note–I don’t think a bad book will destroy a career. That’s like saying because I have old (bad) artwork posted that my current artwork up has been made null & void. Whether art, writing, or music–the arts improve over time. Even professionals get better after each book; people have to start somewhere. In other words–your older stuff is going to be worse than your newer stuff. That doesn’t mean you don’t put your all into it–but I don’t think it’s a career killer or something to be embarrassed about, either.
People just won’t read it if it’s bad–that’s what the miracle of “Sampling” is for–you know whether you can tolerate a book after 4 or 5 chapters, no matter what it is. ^^
Hey, Liliy, I really appreciate your tone throughout this discussion. You’ve said a lot of good stuff. Thanks!
I’ve interacted a lot with self-published author Robert Swartwood. I’ve read his work, and it’s top shelf. But he’s also honest about self-publishing. He concedes that while it’s worked for him, it may not work for someone else. He has nothing against traditional publishing, and still has an agent, from what I understand – even though he’s mentioned that he’s not sure if I he ever will pursue traditional publishing.
The biggest thing I respect about Rob – other than his writing – is his balance. He’s not at war with traditional publishing. Self-publishing has worked for him, he wants to be on the cutting edge, and he wonders what publishing will even look like in a a few years, and he wants to be ahead of the curve – but he’s not at war.
He’s also not a cheerleader. There are a lot of established authors – with platforms already hand – going out and self-publishing themselves because they’re “sick” of the machine. And that’s awesome. Kudos to them. That, too me, is one of the benefits of this self-publishing revolution, is seeing out-of-print works revived.
But those folks are now cheerleading the industry, using their experience and their numbers to – as happened to you, Mike – attack anyone who raises a question about this new development in publishing. Their blogs read like infomercials. Like that big muscular guy pitching “Bow-flex”, and if only I’ll buy bow-flex, I’ll get just as buff as him.
Not a one-to-one comparison, I’ll grant you. But still. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s kinda irresponsible, in my opinion. Those guys have the street cred, background, a platform, and fans. If they self-publish, it’ll work for them. If I self-published, maybe it’ll work out like it has for Robert Swartwood.
But maybe not.
There needs to be balance, here. Self-publishing is now an avenue for lots of projects. But there’s a nasty rhetoric, knee-jerk reaction from that sector to anyone who encourages patience.
Some people will take offense to anything written/said.
If you are pleasing everyone then you aren’t really having an opinion. Just keep on being true to yourself. Yes you will mess up, but you are able to take the heat and realize when you are wrong. That takes a big person.
Don’t sweat the small stuff (easier said than done, I know).
And my spelling errors in this post ALONE show the need for an editor…
*points to the typo above* I know what you mean. XD *hugs her editor to death*
I was confused by your original post, Mike. I knew that you didn’t “wait” to publish Winter Land (or, for that matter, this blog!), but it seemed like some of what you wrote (in that post only, not in previous posts) indicated that you should have waited as a sign of patience, or something.
I think the simpler message of waiting for ten years as a sign of patience was completely lost on me, either due to a failure of my reading comprehension or your decision to bring in self-publishing in (to my mind, seemingly unnecessarily). Honestly, I don’t know which it was.
I simply don’t see how having patience with traditional publishing has anything to do with the decision not to self-publish. If what she wanted was to be traditionally published, self-publishing would never have satisfied that want, regardless of the quality of her final product.
Again, the misunderstanding could be due to my stupidity. I don’t see the connection, at least not from a business-decision perspective.
Dan, I appreciate your points and your tenor. I would definitely place most of the confusion for that first post on me. I shouldn’t have used Jessica’s success as a means to address self-publishing. It was wrong.
That tenor is just because my voice is cracking. I’m normally a baritone.
But, honestly, I’m not sure it is a bad thing to confuse a dumb reader like me. It’s like P90x for the brain. It’s not like you haven’t intentionally confused me before.
“I shouldn’t have used Jessica’s success as a means to address self-publishing.”
And there you have the catalyst for my response. Not hypersensitivity, hostility, envy, or taking a side in some mythical ‘civil war’. I got the patience and perseverance part, was pleased with her success. It was a great little story. I made that clear in my responses here, and on my blog.
Thanks, Patrick. I hope there’s no hard feelings.
I had just read this article: http://www.ninc.com/blog/index.php/archives/us-versus-them
So to read yours as a followup was very interesting. Over on Ninc, Drake talks about the blood, sweat and tears that go into a traditionally published work, while a self-pubbed work (grabbed randomly for a buck) is typically sub-par.
Then you have the people who self-pub lashing back. It’s like the fights over fanfiction, only the stakes are higher because there’s real money involved.
Every author I’ve ever seen took ten years to get published. It seems to be the standard amount of time. People who break through faster, like Naomi Novik, learned how to write a story by writing fanfic for years before she wrote an original novel. I imagine she put in her ten years, too.
Poor Mike, having to be the focus of so many haters. I tell you what, though, this kind of blog publicity is what a lot of writers CRAVE. How many haters come here, post, think to themselves, “What does he write, anyway?” and goes on to buy one of your books? 😉
Ha! This is really a masterful marketing ploy, is that it?
Mike, good points here. I think one of the problems in the “industry” is lack of honesty and lack of a defined “path”, if you will. The agent quoted as having rejected a manuscript that was then seen on Amazon, did not TELL the author it was CRAP. Chances are, it was a standard form rejection. Authors seeking agents get hundreds of rejections and no one takes the time to tell them WHY. They are told by all the how-to books NOT to take it personally. They are told to ASSUME it was just not their cup of tea. Yet, then the agents roll their eyes when the aspiring author does just that. You cannot fault a wannabe author for not knowing something was crap, if you, the “professional”, failed to disclose that fact to said wannabe.
So how many rejections from agents are “enough”? How many rejections from publishers who accept unagented queries is “enough”? Is ten years now the standard “acceptable” strive time? Even after one has queried every single agent and every single publisher listed in the Writer’s Digest Market Guides who says they accept your genre and collected all their rejections? What if I’ve also paid thousands of dollars to attend writer’s conferences where professionals have told me that my writing is sound and my queries well-presented? Does that bring my “acceptable” wait down to 7 years or maybe 5? What if Ms. Dotta did not land a publisher in the tenth year? I’m sure we can find an example out there of someone for whom it took twelve or twenty. I’m sure we can also find aspiring authors who NEVER made it the traditional way who tried just as hard and had books just as good.
My question is, what is the unpublished author waiting FOR? Does time make all those publishers who have already rejected my book change their minds? Or is the hopeful author waiting for new agents and publishers to come into existence? If Editor A at Publishing House Gamma rejected my book, then perhaps Editor A might lose her job in two years and I can re-query when Editor B replaces her. Is that the logic? Or am I waiting for some special cosmic event, like the optimum alignment of planets occuring on a good hair day which also coincides with Editor Prime (the CHOSEN ONE who will absolutely love my ms) finding herself alone with me in an elevator?
How can I decide when I’ve waited long enough and tried hard enough before taking that distasteful, despicable “other route” when no one can even tell me WHAT I am waiting for or make even the smallest kind of guarantee that any of the steps I take are ever going to pay off at all?
For the record, yes, I did self-publish. AFTER I collected rejections from every publisher and agent who said they accepted what I was shopping at the time (1999). I am not especially “proud” of the decision, but I would never have come to the attention of a small publisher and been subsequently re-published by that publisher had I let my rejected manuscript rot in a drawer instead. However, I would never hold my story up as a model for anyone else to follow. For one thing, almost every aspect of the industry has changed (absolutely no one accepted e-mailed queries back then) and it is still in flux. Besides, some people would argue that a small independent publisher is not “traditional” either. For some, it’s Big Six or you’re a complete loser.
It sure would be nice if aspiring authors had better road maps and if those agents and editors would stop expecting us to all be mind-readers. How hard would it be for the standard rejection letters to have three boxes ( A. good but doesn’t work now, ask again in six months B. good but not for me, ask someone else C. this is CRAP, work on your craft). I guess that’s asking too much.
I believe form rejections are a nice way of saying, “This is crap.”
What I want to know if why everyone who wants to write, thinks he can/should write for publication. We don’t see conferences teaching ball players how to play ball and how to persevere.
Conferences, as much as I love them, are partly to blame.
I’ve been trying to learn how to write and publish novels for twelve years, and I have gotten some great rejections. So I keep going. But if all I had to show for my time were form rejections after four years, I’d give up and move on to something else. If you are only getting form rejections that doesn’t mean you need to self publish. It means you’re doing something wrong.
It’s really that simple. There is not a big conspiracy of people wanting to stop great writers from publishing great novels.
I think he wants clarifications for situations like this: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/12/list-story-of-rejection.html
(I’m aware Konrath may not be the best example, but he’s the one I’ve got immediately on hand). I haven’t read The List, but I have read his other book Origin, which suffered a similar fate–and LOVED it.
I think his point is to clarify the reasoning for rejection every time. Even “Wrinkle In Time” suffered multiple rejections before someone took a chance. If an agent took the time to read it, they can probably take the time to write two or three sentences (or check a box in this case) for which reason it was rejected.
I’m with Liliy. I think there are always going to be exceptions to any rule. You CAN’T go round saying that every writer who collects rejections for ten years is crap. Likewise, you can’t say that someone who got lucky the first time (or even after ten years) is necessarily brilliant just because of that.
Also, to some extent it has to be a matter of taste. Lots of people love books that I think are crap, and vice versa. And it is good and right for it to be so.
I love Caprice’s books. I had better – I’m her publisher, haha! I don’t publish crap. Ask my authors – any one will tell you how picky I am. Some (potential) readers have been turned off by the concept of slavery in her stories or perhaps even the strangeness of her storyworld, but not a one has ever accused her of bad quality. Everyone who’s given her a try has loved her, from deployed soldiers to pastors, schoolchildren and grandmothers.
If present company will accept my respectful disagreement, form rejections are just an unfortunate symptom of not enough time. Nothing more, nothing less. Please, let’s not read “crap” where none is intended. I shudder at the effect that could have on our next generation of writers.
Who said that every writer who collects rejections for ten years is crap? Yikes. I hope you aren’t reading that into my comment. I’ve collected rejections for ten years and I don’t think I’m crap.
What I said was that form rejections are a nice way of saying “this is crap” and while I don’t think that’s true in every case, I do think if ALL you get is form rejections that doesn’t mean it’s time to self-publish. It means it’s time to ask yourself why you’re only getting form rejections. If no one has taken the time to write notes to you and encourage you, then there’s a really good chance your writing is flawed or your story is.
>I believe form rejections are a nice way of saying, “This is crap.”
Yes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this fact is available to writers.
Pick up Stephen King’s On Writing and he says it quite clearly: he started out by collecting form rejections, then began to get a few personalized ones, then eventually got acceptance. Like hello, writing world. Stephen King Almighty was not an instant genius, so what makes anyone else think they should be?
It’s just that far too many writers would rather rail about the 1% who do the 10,000 hours and put in the ten years. Occupy Publishing, unfortunately, has far less grounds for complaint than Occupy Wall Street. Nobody is taking anything from others by choosing to put in time refining their craft when others don’t.
The submissions pile is not the place for unready writers to get critique. Critique groups are the place for that. The sub pile is where we test out our application of what the critique group said, and then go back and refine some more…and so on. Or we go to the library and read Dwight Swain and Renni Browne and James Scott Bell for free. Et cetera.
I had a great convo recently with a friend self-pubbing to an established platform (i.e. sales actually happened) about the sheer resistance we’ve both encountered in indie circles to solid business advice on editorial and cover art quality. We’ve both given up answering casual questions about “is this good enough?” because most of the time what’s sought is validation and self-justification, not feedback for improvement to a competitive level.
Now I’m going to get hated on by some random passing indie/selfs, I’m sure…but my point is, if you’re indie and you’re doing quality control, you’re wayyyyy ahead of the pack. You’re doin’ it right, and all the power to you.
The quality control thing comes up regularly in my editing guild…a far-too-high percentage of trad-pub aspirants are just as resistant to advice as any writer. It’s not choosing self-pub (or traditional) that’s the problem. It’s why we make the decisions we make in reference to self-improvement.
Pride’s a downfall. Period.
There is a third angle to this discussion, and that’s putting out great stuff regardless of what channel is used–maybe traditional is the right way for a given project, maybe independent press or self-pub. Those conflicts fade when we focus on doing what’s best for our particular work’s audience reception…including editorial standards, packaging, and delivery method.
As a person who values beautiful book covers way more than is healthy, I also have to report that the importance of packaging to the bottom line is over stated. You do nice covers because it can help, but bad covers have never been the death knell of good books, either.
Even when I was a kid, I knew that War of the Worlds and Han Solo’s Revenge had absolutely amateur, repelling covers. Didn’t stop me from buying either one. Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood had a memorably badly designed cover, and so do about a third of Jodi Piccoult’s books, and those gaffes don’t seem to slow down sales any. Interview With a Vampire has the same heavy, cluttered faux-gothic text that it has had for forty years. Bad and amateurish covers happen for a lot of reasons – not all of which are because of a lack of skill or abundance of self-reliance. Sometimes, in traditional publishing no one owns the cover.
The covers of traditionally published books fall into 3 categories: overproduced, right on and what were they thinking? Trad is more likely to have the first than the third, and self-publishing is more likely to have the third rather than the first, but both miss “right on” in about equal measure.
“but both miss “right on” in about equal measure.”
I’ve noticed this too. 🙂 I’m thinking in terms of the packaging acting as an introduction between a new author and new readers, and I realize it doesn’t apply in the same way to products whose reputation precedes them, as with your examples. Honestly, I can’t stand DW Smith’s covers in terms of aesthetics, but I realize they’re basically just placeholders for his name and the writing that goes with it. Once that’s a known entity with an established following, the wrapping matters little.
And yes, I love good cover art too…Kirk DouPonce’s work in particular. Now there’s a dude who knows how to make it worth a thousand words.
Sally said: I believe form rejections are a nice way of saying, “This is crap.”
Um, what I’m wondering here is why NO ONE has hit the point that MOST agents reject based on QUERY LETTERS only. So HOW can a rejection letter mean “this is crap” if in most cases the agent never even sees the actual writing???? And when the agents reject, the publishers don’t even have a chance to look at it.
I got GOBS of rejection letters. BUT, when I went to a writers conference and got a chance to submit my first chapter to an agent and an editor for review, the agent–whom I HAD queried and gotten a *form letter* from previously–nitpicked a bit but told me my writing was very good and to make some changes and resubmit (I did not, because she basically told me to rewrite my fantasy as a romance). The editor put “PRIORITY” in big red letters on the envelope and said nothing but good things…but told me her publishing house (Baker/Revell) didn’t take YA fantasy.
So, obviously what I had was not “crap”–yet I have a ginormous stack of form rejections, most of them based on a query letter. When I FINALLY got people to look at the freaking manuscript I got GREAT feedback.
I did, eventually, get published traditionally. By a small press. Which as Caprice stated has its own challenges. But I do not believe that “form letter” means “crap.” Sometimes it does, but with the enormous number of submissions agents and editors get every day, there is no way that blanket statement can be made.
Hallo, Other Kat 🙂
I feel your frustration. I’m thinking of the summary plus first pages, not just the query letter. They look for a strong understanding of the story’s major plot points and/or a strong “back cover copy” type blurb because it speaks very much to how well the author has their overall concept nailed down.
The flaw, as you say, is when the author has that nailed down, but it doesn’t translate into the query process for whatever reason–which may even just be the perception on the receiving end, not a definable problem with the query.
“When I FINALLY got people to look at the freaking manuscript I got GREAT feedback.”
That’s a problem of doing SF in Christian publishing that is not your fault, if you ask me. I can’t believe how many of ACFW’s editor listings for the 2012 conference feel the need to specifically say “we don’t do SF/F.” It suggests to me that they’re seeing more SF groundswell than they know what to do with. So, I hope it’s another great year for Splashdown in 2013. 🙂
Thanks, Original Cat ;). I understand the *reason* for the query-only process, but I think it is flawed. I got completely frustrated while searching for a publisher because SO many wanted only query letters. And even those that say to post a few pages at the end, or attach a chapter, aren’t going to read those samples if the query doesn’t grab them. I admit, my first query letters sucked. The whopping two bits of personal feedback I got from cold submissions came with later versions of my query letter where I started breaking the “rules” of query letter writing. (These bits of feedback are not the ones I spoke of before, btw–these were strictly from sending submissions online, the others were through a conference.)
I do agree that writing fantasy has a LOT to do with it in the Christian market, and I am so grateful for the small presses who are trying to fill the gap the bigger houses don’t know how to deal with.
“Original Cat” — This is a sidenote. You said, “I can’t believe how many of ACFW’s editor listings for the 2012 conference feel the need to specifically say ‘we don’t do SF/F.’ It suggests to me that they’re seeing more SF groundswell than they know what to do with.” I’m wondering why you reach that conclusion rather than the other… that they still really don’t do SF/F?
“I’m wondering why you reach that conclusion rather than the other… that they still really don’t do SF/F?”
I kind of mean both. If they did it, they wouldn’t have to specifically notify about not doing it; if the subs weren’t happening, they wouldn’t have to specifically notify about not doing it.
Which brings us back to the thing about the young industry and being patient about growth while not making unreasonable defenses of the status quo, eh…
BTW–am I the original, or is Kat-with-a-K…? I think it might be both. 🙂
I think the “Original” comes from you being involved with Splashdown first, so I was “Other” Kat. But yeah, probably both :).
Most of the agents I submitted to asked for five or ten pages pasted in at the bottom of the query. But even the ones who didn’t usually asked me to send my work. My query was crap, but I’d either met the agents at a conference or I’d won a contest and that made them take me seriously. So they were willing to give my stuff a look.
You’re right to say that a form rejection doesn’t always mean the query is crap. (I didn’t mean to make a blanket statement, I meant to respond to Caprice who was asking for a grading system. I was suggesting that form rejections could be read as “this is crap” and I still think that’s generally a good way to read them) But you’re right, they do sometimes mean, “i don’t know you and I’m not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.” Either way, if you aren’t getting some positive feedback from professionals the answer is to fix what’s wrong, not to self-publish. If you are getting positive feedback but the publishers aren’t doing your kind of book, or they already have a thriller author and can’t take another one on, then self-publishing might make sense, I think.
That’s all I’ve really meant to say in this thread. If everyone thinks you stink, you probably stink. Take time to learn or do something else.
I’m also not sold that form rejections mean a writer’s work still needs more work, as in really needing it. Because practically all manuscripts can always be improved “just a little bit more.” It can be just as bad to tweak endlessly as it can to throw your second draft out.
Rejections come for all reasons, from bad writing, but also simply because they don’t have a publishing slot for it, don’t think it will sell for any number of reasons not related to the quality of the story or writing, already have a book very similar to that one under contract, or you submit a genre the publishing house doesn’t print, to simply personal taste of the editor. And in most cases, the editor doesn’t have time to write personal notes. If they do, it means, “Please submit something else to me.”
But a form reject can mean many things, and I don’t think it necessarily means it is crap. Now, if you’ve never received any feedback on it from a critique partner or a beta-reader or editor, and you’ve not put in a million words of practice yet, there is a good chance it is crap. Get some objective feedback before sending it out again. See if it can be improved, which is tricky for new authors because they often have a hard time editing while keeping the voice intact that makes it sellable.
But like Grace said, a form rejection means nothing more than they didn’t have the time to give you any feedback. If they do give you feedback, it does mean you are getting close. Because it takes some good work to cause them to spend more time than telling their secretary “form reject.” But I wouldn’t go so far as to say it usually means the work itself is crap. Could be any number of reasons.
I’m also not sold that form rejections mean a writer’s work still needs more work, as in really needing it. Because practically all manuscripts can always be improved “just a little bit more.” It can be just as bad to tweak endlessly as it can to throw your second draft out.
If your manuscript just needs to be improved upon just a little bit more you will not be getting form rejections. You will be getting invitations to revise and resubmit. Or you will be getting offers of representation. If you send to fifty agents and all fifty give you a form rejection, you can safely assume you need more than just a little bit of tweaking.
But like Grace said, a form rejection means nothing more than they didn’t have the time to give you any feedback.
If they don’t have time for feedback that means something.
I’ll put my two cents in. Not to brag, but hopefully just to give some context. I graduated summa cum laude with B.S. in English, minor in Creative Writing, with Honors and specifically Academic Honors in writing. I had one creative writing teacher tell me to submit a piece to the New Yorker, and another say not to leave my manuscript in the drawer, because it would be a shame. She told me point blank, “I will see your books on the shelves next to mine some day. If you decide to work at it.” (She was published, by the way, and she was telling me I hadn’t worked hard enough that semester…oops).
All that was in 1997 or roundabouts. It’s now 2012. I have (what I feel to be) a good to above average completed manuscript that doesn’t have a home, several short stories that I can’t find homes in even podunk ezines. These are good freakin’ stories people. I’m not a genious, and I doubt history will remember me, but I know how to write, and yet, still I chug chug along with 99% of my rejections coming as form letters. So, while I continue to work to improve myself in the waiting, I don’t believe the form letters. Instead, I believe that teacher who told me I would become a published author if I only put my mind to it.
That being said, I think the form letters are a symptom of agents and pub houses (and ezines) who are beyond swamped, because, as I think we’ve established, every one wants to or thinks they can become a writer.
Last thing, I think there are more writers out there now than ever who can produce good fiction. There just aren’t enough “traditional” spots, nor is there enough time in everyone’s day to try to wade thru the bad and moderate quality self published stuff in search of the good/great stuff. The electronic age has made it so that we can’t keep up with ourselves. But, it’s also made it so we can self-publish. Can’t win ’em all, I guess. I’m not complaining though. I have over a decade and a half to work through my poor me syndrome!
I can’t remember where it was now, but I recently saw a post by an agent explaining just how many thousands of queries they get per month. It would be a full-time job for several people if they allocated just ONE MINUTE to each one for a personal answer. So NO, if they don’t have time to give feedback, that is all there is to it. It means nothing.
“So NO, if they don’t have time to give feedback, that is all there is to it. It means nothing.”
…Which kind of brings us back to what we started out responding to, that being Caprice’s suggestion that there should be better feedback in rejections…it’s just not going to happen in the majority of cases, regardless what any of us think of form rejections.
Frankly, my perception is slanted by small press experience. I’m connected to several, and over the years, I’ve done a bit of everything from copyediting to content editing to acquisitions reading. So when I say “they” can tell by the synopsis/first pages, I mean that’s part of my background of experience, and I know what it looks like when it’s not ready. It’s definitely something that’s contributed to assisting editing clients in leaping the hurdles, but what Jessica and Kat say is very valid too.
“Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell probably has more insight on the variables than the binary of “crap” versus “time crunch”…besides individual skillset, there’s also social aptitudes and connections, market demand, advantageous personal backgrounds, and the serendipity of right place/right time.
Frankly, while many of you here have been tremendous encouragers to me as a writer (bless you, Grace!), I very much expect to replicate Jessica’s long-term experience in some vein over the years to come. I just hope for the same maturity, faith and courage in the journey.
While I *did* lament that it would be nice to have better feedback in regards to rejections, I didn’t mean for it to be my main point. This rose out of Mike quoting an agent who reportedly rolled his/her eyes and whined when it was discovered that a rejected book (which that agent thought was “not fit for human consumption”) ended up self-published.
My main point was, what do those editors and agents expect from unpublished authors when their form rejections don’t tell them anything? It’s like they are expecting unpublished authors to be mind-readers.
They don’t have time to check a box or write an honest sentence before dropping a rejection in the mail? Fine. Then they have NO RIGHT to roll their eyes when the poor author doesn’t get their ambiguous message. If a form rejection is really meant to communicate “You stink” then why haven’t these language professionals just worded said rejections that way? At some point, someone composed the form letter with real words. Agents and editors and even their assistants and office lackeys know the English language well enough to be paid for it. If they wanted to let wannabe authors know what they really think, they could.
Yet every last form rejection says “no thanks” in the nicest and most ambiguous way possible. On top of that, every “How to get Published” book on the market tells the wannabes these form rejections could mean anything and NOT to take them personally or read things into them. So why is it any surprise at all the unpublished authors are not getting this hidden message? How dare they roll their eyes when they don’t have time/energy/courage/whatever to just flat out TELL the wannabe “you stink” or “your book is crap” or whatever other secret messages they’d like to impart?
For the record, I prefer they keep their form rejections polite. But I think being polite also requires they not roll their eyes or be surprised when their actions lead to consequences like crappy books getting self-published because they turned them down without being specific why they did so. That’s my two cents.
I missed the war on that post, and I’m not sorry about that.
Self publishing is good and smart for a very few people. The vast majority of self-published people are like the guy who can’t sing and doesn’t know it.
http://www.navpress.com/account/forgotpassword.aspx?yid=V3JVZDd5aVhRWTNqbFQwZXlTdG5tYXhWaDFIK25oaGdJckFpZ2NYbVhobz0=&cid=t6j0a5f3
I feel sorry for the guy, but if you watch the following clip for the whole two minutes, you see that it’s his own fault. He is unable to take correction. He believes the judges were prejudiced against his old-fashioned Christian songs.
At that point you stop feeling sorry for him and you start thinking he needs to fall a few more times, because his pride is so huge. And yes, it’s pretty prideful to think that you know more about singing (or writing) than those who make a living judging it day in and day out know. Why did his coworkers put him up to entering? They were laughing at him. It was cruel, sure, but sometimes people can’t hear when you speak nicely. They are so sure they are great writers/singers/dancers/whatever.
The difference though is that self-publishers get a direct measurement of how terrible they are – traditionally published author’s can’t.
Because Self-publisher controls inventory, he only has to check sales figures: “ah! Book A has sold 100 copies this month. Book B has sold 10. Book A is about ten times as popular as Book B.”
Traditionally published author doesn’t have such handy measures: “My agent tells me that my publisher might have sold 100 copies of Book A this month, but that’s not counting returns, and is an estimate based off the quarterly figure. Book B is going out of print, because, although marginally profitable, it isn’t worth it to them to do a second run when they can invest that money elsewhere. I’m confident that, with enough time, Book A will earn out.”
There are variables for the self-pubbed author, too. Book A and book B had different covers, or he marketed differently.
The traditionally-pubbed author can measure his talent on the basis of his ongoing contracts and on the bases of his Amazon reviews. If he’s not Madonna or some other such person, and he keeps getting contracts, he may legitimately believe that he’s probably a decent writer. Yes, some traditionally-pubbed writers are horrid, but most are not. The self-pubbed model is the exact opposite. Some are good, most are not.
oops wrong link. Here is the guy who can’t sing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqzF3YL8laM
I took your post in the spirit it was written. And that person who said somebody should slap the author who waited ten years to publish deserves to be slapped, too. Tolerance for others’ decisions is a two-way street, and so is slapping [okay, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, but it’s still a universal principle that what goes around comes around]. As They Might Be Giants so wisely sing, “He wants a shoe horn, the kind with teeth. People should get beat up for stating their beliefs.”
I think that your comments here are quite logical. And I am allowed to say it because I have published my first book using the Kindle Publishing platform as a self published writer. what I have come to learn is that I now have a “published” book that is not of the caliber that it should be. I have published something that needs an intense reread/edit process by me and someone more qualified to edit than myself. I have also started working on my plan to, eventually, approach traditional publishers in the future. I am self published. My first novella has been downloaded some 12,000 times in three months and I am happy to have the book out there…but the simple truth is that I won’t be truly happy until I feel that I have made a level of success that I think fits the work I wish to dedicate to writing. For me, there are far too many novels and novellas (my own is the perfect example) that were published before it was their time.
Whenever someone implies that self-publishing is not the New World Order of publishing, I cringe. It isn’t that I don’t agree — I do — it’s just that I know there will be backlash. There is an insecurity among self-publishers (for good reason, I guess) that compels them to defend their choices like their life depended on it. It can get pretty bloody.
Anyway, that post was more about patience than anything else, wasn’t it? Even self-publishers need patience — more than traditional publishers, actually. Some people could learn a thing or two from your friend’s persistence. Believe in your work, yes, but don’t send your child out into the cold, harsh world before he can walk. Don’t jump the gun. Wait, focus, work hard then work harder. . .then, when you’re sure you’ve done all you can do, take the next step, whatever that may be.
All that said. . .seriously, how did anyone take what you said to be an all-out attack of on self-publishing? You’re self-published! Not all your stuff is self-published, but you’ve gone that route as well. Done it, in my opinion, the way it was meant to be done. But apparently folks were to busy slamming their heads into desks to actually learn who you are. Clearly, you’re more understanding than I.
Good post, Mike, and some good comments.
Two points I’d like to add. One, I think the difference here between traditional publishing and self-publishing is one of how you view the business model. Traditional publishing, the author more views the novel, especially the first one, as an event. In self-publishing, while an event of sorts, or more a milestone, it is not the full picture of success, though I’m sure some self-published authors do focus on that, and fail because of it.
So if you are looking at that one book, maybe that first book, as to whether it is a success, and linking the author’s success to that one book, then all the waiting time, sending out multiple queries, rewrites, etc, makes sense. If not, then the success of that one book isn’t defining. It can be horrible, but if the author learns, and following books improve, eventually one of the books down the line will be “successful” and accomplish the same success for the writer. That was in part what my example in the previous thread showed.
Self-publishing *if it is to be successful* has to take the “long tail” approach and multiple book approach. Even professional authors know you have to have multiple books. Traditionally published authors if they don’t have another book in the canon, that within one year their novel could be off bookstore shelves (maybe within as short a time as 3 months), that there will be little real income stream, career building. You can’t go ten years between each book and expect to build a career out of it. And if that one book does hit the charts, but you have no other, you’ll be like one of those 80s 1-hit-song wonders.
But the two operate on different business models. And being a “successful” self-published author still requires a lot of work. I did a blog post at Grasping for the Wind on that last year, “When Self-Publishing Goes Wrong,” relating to the ways in which self-publishers sabotage their own success and career building.
http://www.graspingforthewind.com/2011/12/16/when-self-publishing-goes-wrong/
Two, I don’t agree that one or two bad novels are going to ruin anyone’s career. Bad books will sit in obscurity, only noticed by a handful of readers. And once the writer learns enough to realize they are bad, they can easily take them down, or fix them and republish them. It won’t stop a good book they have written from being discovered and taking off and being successful.
In the rare case that one of those 50 readers out of millions who bought the bad book happens to be someone with enough clout to make an example out of it, it is easy enough to change your by-line and keep going, getting better.
This isn’t to say that an author shouldn’t work to put out their best stuff, improve, learn, and get their book edited, etc. (The link above will confirm what I think about that.) But a bad first book or three isn’t going to sink a writer’s career. If it could, then you’d have no chance in the smaller world of publishing’s agents and editors since they get to look at that first crappy novel you wrote and enter you in their database of authors to automatically reject when they see your name.
The other issue you raised, and I was the first to raise it on the post you were referencing, whether traditional publishing is the ideal route, here are my thoughts.
As I mentioned there, I think it has a lot to do with an author’s goals. For sure, the indie route has only become viable in the last three to four years. A couple years before that really, but it wasn’t as well known. So by default anyone who started their writing career push before, say, 2005 or 2004, self-publishing wasn’t even on the radar screen as a viable option. What self-publishing was available back then was either expensive and stigmatized, as you noted. So few authors had a real choice other than the traditional publisher route. So that was their primary focus.
And because getting published was half the battle, jumping through all the various hoops successfully being a lot of work, luck, and prayer, by the time one attained that goal, they had put in hours, months, and years of work getting there. It is a big accomplishment to get published! Even though that one book doesn’t represent success yet, as far as having a career. Even though odds are, it won’t earn out its advance, as the majority of published books don’t. Unless the author gets “Christopher Paolini” lucky on that first book.
I think the proper comparison here, is that a first book published via a traditional publisher route is not the equivalent of a first book published by a self-publisher. The former has had a lot more work done on it, editing done on it in most cases, chances are a professional cover design, etc., that unless that self-published author did due diligence, his/her first published book is not going to be the accomplishment that the traditionally published author’s book is. It doesn’t represent the tears and queries and synopsizes of rewrites and edits unless that self-published author went that extra mile themselves.
If getting a book published that will mean it gets on bookshelves, has the backing and approval of a major publishing house willing to invest thousands into publishing your book, and bevy of professionals to work on it is the author’s goal, then they should go traditional. Because publishing a self-published book can never mean that. It doesn’t hold the same meaning. It means something different when someone is willing to spend hundreds (like my indie-publisher has done) to publish your work than it does when I fork over less than one hundred and a few hours formatting to get my book out via self-publishing.
But if one’s goal is to get read, to make a career, to be successful, either route can accomplish that, and both require a lot of work and years to be successful. But I think I have a better chance of it via self-publishing and less risk of issues that route as well. If conditions change into the future, that will likely change as well. But for me, I don’t feel getting traditionally published is in my best interest, for various reasons I’ll not list here. Not because I think traditional publishers and agents are inherently evil or trying to destroy me. And someday if it turns out that opportunity arises I may decide to go that route with a particular book. But because I think for me, at his point in my career, it’s a business decision, I can be more profitable and take less risk going this route. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to get published again by indie presses or even a traditional press at some point.
That said, as traditional publishers experience the squeeze by continuing decline of print book sales in favor of ebooks, they are doing some things they hope will help them in the short term, but will likely harm them in the long run.
And that is part of my reason at this time as well. The publishing industry is getting shaken up and shifted. I don’t know where it will end up, who will come out winners and which ones will be closing their doors. I can effectively build a market and platform for my books in the indie market, so some point in the future when it all settles down, if it is in my interest to do so then, I can attempt to get a book published through them.
I see both as viable routes, but I admit I’m playing a wait and see attitude on what happens in publishing for the next few years. But I’m not going to sit on my hands and wait. I’m going to keep writing, learning, and building my line of products. So when it does, I’ll be in a position to take advantage of it.
I’m sorry you got so much flack back on your post about self-publishing… I can see why, however, because a lot of self-published people are very protective of their work. In their view, they tried, agents turned them down, so they chose a different option.
I cannot speak for others, only for myself, but… I want a big publisher to represent me. I want to walk into Barnes & Noble someday and find my book on a shelf. The sheer amount of books out there proves that this CAN be done, with enough determination, a good idea, and decent timing.
However, one thing disconcerts me… a lot of people say that the waiting period, and the revision, improved their writing. This may be true. I certainly believe that my fourth revision is better than the rough draft. But… is that any guarantee that you will find an agent? Because honestly, there are some downright bad books out there. I am not speaking of genre or taste, just poorly written books that somehow still managed to get published. I used to think publishing was about “quality,” but now I’m not so sure anymore, and that’s a bit disheartening.
As an independent publisher, I often find myself in the no-man’s-land between traditional and self-publishing. My operation is traditional in nature, just on a much smaller scale, and yet more often than not, I realise I am gunning for the self-publishers. Why? Because I believe in getting it out there. That’s what I set up my business to do. There are too many manuscripts and not enough publishers. So I say go for it!
HOWEVER – and this is a biggie – in going for it, you MUST insist on quality. If that means twenty critique partners and paying an editor, then for goodness’ sakes, DO IT. If you put out a subpar product, you have no one to blame but yourself. But if you have a handle on the writing craft, if you know what you are doing, if your critique partners and editors are suitably tough on your story until it cleans up nice, then there’s no reason you can’t make a go of it.
Yes, spend the time to learn how to write. Being impatient might mean a few more bad books out there, and the world’s got too many of those. But once you know you can write and have had it objectively confirmed, then kick that baby book out the door into the public eye, and start on your next.
As long as your quality is up there, you need have no regrets. I don’t see the point in getting held up by what amounts to red tape. Just my opinion, of course – Life’s too short to wait for agents and publishers who have no time for you.
I can agree with this. 🙂
Good advice, Grace. It seems to me the best way to counter the stigma of “self-published novels are crap,” whether or not it deserves the stigma, is to self-publish quality work. Not self-publishing isn’t the answer. Taking time to hone your craft before you self-publish, is.
What she said.
Mike,
As usual, you have brought up a thought-provoking (and surprisingly controversial) post about the Civil War between the traditional publishing and self-publishing.
Well, I’m one of those up-and-coming (or wanna be) novelists who has been working on my novel for the past three years and I’m currently getting ready to start writing my third draft.
I’ve decided to self-publish my when the time comes. For me, it’s not about a rush to get publish or sending it out prematurely. I just feel (through research and thinking about this very deeply) that self-publishing will be the best avenue for me.
There are many novelists that have self-published over the years from authors like Mark Twain, Zane Grey, Virginia Woolf, Poe and James Joyce…to current authors like Richard Paul Evans and John Grisham’s with his first novel, A Time to Kill.
So I believe that there is a path for people who decide get traditionally published and those who decide on self-publisheing as means on developing a writing career.
Moreover, I guess the stigma that comes with self-publishing is definitely real and present at all times around this topic. (The comments provided has definitely made it known)
But, I realize that there always been a stigma on something when we deal with human begins and their subjective analysis on anything (in this case…a work of art being good or crap.)
Well being Black, Conservative, and Christian and someone who loves reading novels more than television and movies will always carry a stigma. It comes with the territory. (Sorry for those of you who are a little sensitive whenever race or politics is mentioned) But, I just wanted to drive home the point…that there will always be things in a society or culture that will be stigmatized.
However, what has given me hope….is that I sent the second draft of my work-in-progress to a respected professional editor and she gave me honest feedback that I have the basics of a good story and a possible publishable novel and I should keep going with it.
So I will and when I finish this third draft….however long it takes and I will send the manuscript to her and to see if I have grown and if it will be publishable.
If so….then I will take the leap into self-publishing with all its perils and stigma and give it my best shot to build a readership. We only have one life to live and there should be no regrets as a writer as to which route you choose to establish your career.
Marion