Now that Nathan Bransford’s out of the agenting biz, his opinions about self-publishing appear to be… evolving. In Traditional vs. Self-Publishing is a False Dichotomy, he writes:
There is no “us” vs. “them.” Traditional vs. self-publishing is a false dichotomy. It’s an illusion created by people who either have let their frustrations get the best of them or are trying to sell you something. We’re all writers trying to figure out the best way to get our books to readers. We’re all on the same team.
No, the traditional publishing industry is not a hive of retrograde monsters out to steal and eat your newborn children. No, self-publishing is not a gang of unwashed crap artists trying to poison the literary well forever.
Publishing is a spectrum of choice, from traditional publishers who pay you, will handle most things for you and assume all risk in exchange for certain rights to your book, to self-publishing where you handle everything yourself, pay your own way, and adopt your own risk. And there’s a whole lot more choice in between those two poles.
What’s the right way? There is no right way.
Bransford’s magnanimity toward self-publishing is part of what Forbes’ contributor Alan Rinzler recognized as a “notable shift” in the industry. Whereas most agents, like publishers, once viewed self-publishing as a bane, its explosive popularity (for writers and readers) has forced the gatekeepers to rethink their enmity. (Although, if the comments on THIS POST are any indication, there’s still quite a bit of animosity between camps.)
So is this just the agents, and industry, scrambling for footing, attempting to justify their existence by courting a broader market? Is this an admission to being behind the eight ball? And is Bransford correct — There is no right way?
Having attended the OCCWF Conference last week, I can say that these questions are alive and well. Of course, I’m speaking from my limited experience. But if publishing is “a spectrum of choice,” that conference was tilted toward the “traditional publishing” choice.
Was this intentional? I doubt it. It’s just the way things have always been done. Which may be part of the problem. Of course, this is not meant to suggest that there were no voices for self-publishing or that self-published authors / works were viewed as inferior. Nevertheless, the clear (if unspoken) sentiment was that traditional publishing is the ideal. There may not be a “right choice,” but if the writers and reps attending that conference were any indication, there are “better choices.”
The reality of what Bransford asserts, that there is no genuine demarcation between traditional and self-publishing, seems incongruous to existing structures. We might be coming to believe in the validity of all mediums, but has that really taken hold throughout the industry? My sense is that writers conferences are part of an old model, one that’s tethered to the traditional publishing industry and designed to support its machinations. I could be wrong, but that’s the feeling I’m getting.
Anyway, I’d love to know your thoughts. What would a writers conference look like if there really was no right way, if traditional and self-publishing were both given equal footing?
I can answer you! The conference would look like the ones Novelists Inc has put on for the past three years — and the one we’re putting on in October in White Plains. NINC, as the organization is known to members, is a dedicated organization of career-focused novelists (i.e., we don’t write novels just for love, but also for money). Our conference look at what is happening in the industry that helps authors reach readers, dazzle publishers, and pay the bills. Check out what we have to offer (major update to the workshop lists and speaker info coming after Memorial Day): http://www.ninc.com/conferences/2012/index.asp. You have to be a member to attend the conference, but not the Thursday First Word all-day session of panels that will focus on profiting from both traditional and indie publishing partnerships.
There is little doubt most writers conferences are skewed toward traditional publishing. When you join ACFW one of the first things you discover in the stated purpose of that group is to promote fiction in traditional publishing. Whether that is a good or bad thing has to be determined by each individual member.
As you saw in your exchange with Athol Dickson a few weeks back, there is a paradigm shift in how some traditionally published authors view their novels in specific and publishing in general. I still tell anyone who asks that they should aim for traditional publication first but make themselves a student of the quickly evolving options that are out there as well.
When I was at a conference over ten years ago, I managed to sit at a table of self-publishing folks. They were the entrepreneurial types who really didn’t like anybody who wasn’t. They said the old model of publishing was dead. They turned up their noses at everyone. Who knows? Maybe they were early prophets. I like the idea of self-publishing, but not to that extreme. It’s like the difference between Amway marketers and somebody who owns a local cafe. And did they get something out of the conference? I’m guessing yes, if they wanted to, because of the variety of workshops on everything from book covers to editing advice. Conferences have literally tripled in price since those days, so I’m not sure if the price is worth it or not. I would like to go to one, but I don’t know…..I’ll have to get another job just to pay for it. McDonalds?
I would guess the practical answer to your question is that such a conference would give weight in both directions in classes offered. IOW, classes on how to write a query might not be all that important to someone focused on self-publishing, but a class on how to design your own covers would be. Likewise, the opposite would be true for someone focused toward making it in traditional publishing. And even within classes, as some subjects will obviously overlap, giving advice on the different considerations on either path. IOW, the curriculum would reflect that there would be writers heading in both directions, and thus give more credence to each path within the offerings.
And I think there would be less classes like, “Is self-publishing a valid option?” and “Trad. pub. vs. self pub.” (Not that those classes might not be fine, but the inference from the title would be it is tilled toward trad. publishing being “the ideal.” and self-pub an inferior route.) So less us vs. them and more classes that would be focused toward helping the individual author decide which route might be best for them, at that time.
I’ve only been to one conference, and it wasn’t so publisher focused either. More of a fan conference, so I can’t speak from experience. But there is a growing trend of new authors opting for the self-publishing route over traditional publishing. While I think in the eyes of many writers, traditional publishing is the ideal still, it is changing. In large part due to issues like I pointed out in my comment on Nathan’s post. Traditional publishing’s reaction to the advent of the digital revelation has tended to push authors away rather than draw them to them to them. Mostly contractual issues and rights grabs. The more that continues to happen, the more I predict authors will move to self-publishing. But that may not be the best option for every writer either. A lot depends on the goals of the writer and what they want.
“We might be coming to believe in the validity of all mediums, but has that really taken hold throughout the industry? My sense is that writers conferences are part of an old model, one that’s tethered to the traditional publishing industry and designed to support its machinations.”
I would agree, Mike. Of course I can’t speak to Kelly’s Novelists Inc. because I’ve never heard of it. I’ve been to three conferences locally that featured some celebrity industry professionals. The emphasis was on the traditional means of publishing with one small exception in the last one where a hint of the fabulous possibilities offered by e-books was presented. As likeable and cordial as all the pros were, there was still that clique-y high school feel to their status and in doing things (as you pointed out) the way they’ve “always been done”. Hey, if it continues to work, fine. But it most certainly does not work for everyone. And the undercurrent of a negative stigma for those who’ve gone the self-publishing route still exists although slightly less boisterous.
I don’t know a lot about writing conferences, but am attending one in sunny Queensland in October. The major sponsor is an Australian publisher of Christian fiction. As long a writers’ conference is paid for by traditional publishing, it is likely to favour traditional publishing.
Having said that, this conference includes a seminar on trends in Christian publishing, and a discussion on self-publishing vs. traditional.
My guess is that such a writer’s conference already exists, but it is rare, under the radar and fairly exclusive. Because self-publishers are unfettered from the traditional process: a normal conference is unhelpful to their core employer/payer – the reader. Because traditionally published writers are usually have a disincentive (contractual) to self-publish for money, that writer who dwells in both realms with equal happiness will be rare, and, well…exclusive.
In other words, both worlds may hold different advantages for different writers, it would be unusual for a body of content producers who drift seamlessly between the two to have a viable outlet.
Its NASCAR and Indy, baby. A lot of race fans dig both, but no driver straddles that line for long. Different authorities, different rules, different objectives – they are, at heart, distinct business models.
That’s not what I’m hearing from some midlist writers, at least in the secular houses. A lot of them are putting their backlist up as self-published, that they have retrieved the rights to, and getting those books earning again. I’ve heard more than one long-time author making a living at it saying they will for the time being, do both.
I think it may be harder for a writer starting out or with only a small handful of titles to go both routes. But then, Dean Wesley Smith promotes the idea of self-publishing a novel while you shop it to traditional publishers, so that it is earning some money while it is going through the long process of finding a publishing home. I don’t know how many are like that out there, but it is there.
That makes my point. If you are a midlist writer under contract with the rights to your backlist, and are opting for self-publishing then it is obvious that self-publishing is the midlist’s wheelhouse – straddling the trad/self-publishing realms is a short-term state dictated by circumstance, but not an aspired-to state.
In other words, writers in a transitional state such as that have a need (possibly) for a transitional conference to get themselves more profitably in the new realm. That’s a niche. The fact that these authors don’t have the option of returning their “backlist” to traditional publishers, yet are finding the backlist profitable (in many cases, far more profitable to the author than the original run was) tells you that they are very unlikely to find the diminishing advances of traditional publishing to hold them for much longer. There’s simply no incentive.
From a business perspective, it makes sense to have two separate conferences, with, possibly a small rare and likely temporary “transitional conference.” Even if you play in both worlds, they are different enough that it doesn’t make sense to mash them both up over a 3-day weekend. The entire structure of the traditional: navigating the networks, understanding roles and distribution, getting exclusive time with agents and editors, etc. is nearly the opposite of self-publishing (pushing content, pushing content, and pushing content.)
Except for a very detailed, personalized small conference, attempting it on the large scale would be a feathered fish. It isn’t that they can’t acknowledge the other realm in some limited ways, but I suspect self-publishing conferences and traditional publishing conferences will be very different for years to come.
True point on the backlist thing. But it is also true that many midlisters are doing both self-publishing and traditional at the same time. I know Kathrine Rush has said she does both for new books, and there are others:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/05/2012/a-few-people-have-asked-me-if-i-plan-on-doing-this-again/
Most of the folks I’m reading are saying the smart writer will do both and not rule either out. Whatever makes sense for the particular book or goals one has for a book.
Oh, I agree with that – I just mean that for a writer’s conference to accomplish Mike’s theoretical “equally balanced” approach between trad and self-publishing, it would have to be small and rare and capturing of the moment…and probably hosted from the independent side of things.
There are sound reasons to go into traditional publishing, especially if you don’t care about the royalty part, and sometimes, even if you do (and have the clout and IP attorney to leverage something fair), sound reasons for remaining independent, and perfectly good reasons to go traditional for some and independent for others.
There just isn’t that sound of a reason for a balanced conference model: the content is very, very different, and it would be too superficial to pack all that into a 3-day event. It would be like combining E3 and ComicCon or something. TMI and not enough time, and worse: some of it would be unpleasantly competitive. Because almost everything I’ve learned with an eye on trad is completely useless for the purposes of self-publishing, and vice versa, I know for a fact that I’d have a stroke trying to process the conflicting objectives in one conference. Better to go to two separate conferences, I think (again, where each can spend a little time addressing the “state” of the other environment, without balance.)
Example: Understanding returns, agents, author contracts, advances/loans, rights of first refusal, editor networks, writing to please the publisher are critical business concepts in one that are useless or harmful in the other.
I was surprised, having just attended the Blue Ridge Mountain Christian Writers Conference, that the tides have changed. I heard agents and publishers alike talk about self-publishing as a viable option. They were also honest about the ups and downs. Traditional publishing still is going to get MOST writers in the hands of more readers. I know this not just from classes and the traditional publishing crowd but from talking to those self-published who say they are doing “very well”. When I ask what that means and specific numbers, very well isn’t very well to me at all. Self is a viable option that I plan to explore with some specific projects but I still lean toward traditional for most of my work. So, long story short, I’m seeing much more balance then I have in the past but it was definitely not a 50/50 split of classes.
You’ve hit it right on the head – that’s the difference, I think: traditional publishing will eventually more openly appeal to writers more concerned about wide readership, less concerned about making a living.
Self-publishing will appear to writers more concerned about making a living. The royalty difference is astonishing.
Both are fine objectives. Right now, there are traditionally published folks [Steven James, Eric Wilson, E.E. Knight are all widely read authors who have made public comments about dropping royalties and what they plan to do about – all different plans, by the way] who are saying “Readership is great, but not my core objective” and they’ve had to change their approach. There are others who really want in for the readership, and don’t plan (Scott Turow, for example – a practicing attorney) to quit their day job any time soon.
The problem arises when the Self-Publisher decides he wants to be famous and widely read, and is disappointed when “only” a hundred people buy his books in a month, or when the Trad guy realizes he’d like to pay for things, and is surprised that he can’t eat his listing on the NY Times Bestseller list. In other words, identify the objective in writing, and consider the options.