Self-publishing: just a case of vanity?
I commented on this post a while back and then forgot all about it until @selfpubreview flagged it up for me on Twitter. The comments thread is an interesting snapshot of both sides of the self-publishing argument.
[In case you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, be assured that I am rabidly in favour of self-publishing, and consider those who dislike it to be backward-looking snobs (though I put it a little more politely in my initial comment).]
Addendum: @selfpubreview’s site looks to be an excellent resource for self-publishing.
Self-publishing – the debate rumbles on
There’s now’t wrong with self-publishing in principle (and constantly walking into things with one’s nose elevated is punishment enough for this backward-looking snob.) My objection is based on the practical sense I got of it from reading Foucault’s Pendulum. Wherein hard-up writers get exploited by unscrupulous types from self-publishing houses. Am I twit for basing my position on a bit of po-mo fiction (ye gods, it’s Italian as well)? Er, very probably.
Er, cos no writers ever get screwed by mainstream publishing houses?
I’m sure they do. But, cynical wisecracks aside (Yes, I know I’m out of my comfort zone) mainstream publishing houses don’t exist merely to rip writers off. Surely intent matters?
I still don’t get your argument. You seem to be saying that because some people involved in self-publishing may be unscrupulous self-publishing is a bad idea. But you can apply that argument to absolutely anything.
Also, I think your idea that there are no rip-off merchants in mainstream publishing is a tad rose tinted. It’s a cut throat industry, and authors are the most easily manipulated cog in the machine. I’ve seen this across the board, from quaint little academic publishers to large fiction houses.
My enthusiasm is for self-publishing as an individual endeavour (done with the aid of third party packagers like lulu). The volume of writers out there, and the ever diminishing returns for their work means that very few can hope to acquire an agent or a mainstream publishing deal. Self-publishing allows them to produce work despite these constraints, just as ‘amateur’ musicians can produce and distribute their work now that technology has made the process cheap and simple.
But you and me are coming at this from completely different philosophies I think. You want to protect your market, whereas I want to blow the market open. Ne’er the twain shall meet.
Okay. Let’s clear this up a bit with some of the clear and insightful prose for which I am unknown.
Firstly, let me reiterate. I welcome the notion of self-publishing. Democratising the means of production by empowering individual writers to create and distribute their work directly is a brilliant (if inevitable) innovation (I didn’t even know that you could do such things) I just looked at Lulu, fell off my chaise longue and dropped my opium pipe in surprise.
While I bow to your greater experience of the publishing industry, every thing you say about the mainstream is only worse amongst yer vanity presses of old. I’m sure there are good ones out there, but amongst the other writers I know, I’ve only heard horror stories.
So then… maybe … I think this is where we agree: if by self-publishing you mean writer+words+lulu (and its ilk) then I do heartily welcome it.
One nagging question does remain. How does any of this make it easier for me to earn a living by doing what I love? I’m a writer not an entrepreneur. But er… don’t try and answer that one.
Yeah, I’m not into the vanity presses thing either, so I guess we are agreed. There’s a first!
I don’t think it is really possible to make a living from writing solely what you love, is it? I was talking to a literary agent a couple of weeks ago, and I asked her specifically if any of her authors earned enough from writing to support themselves. Not a one, as it turns out. All had part-time work in other areas.
Academics increasingly have to pretty much offer their writing to publishers for free in order to get the publications they need to ascend the greasy academic pole.
I used to find this quite depressing, until I realised I just liked writing for its own sake, and didn’t much care if I made any money from it. (I mean, I *do* make part of my living from writing, but of course not the kind we are really referring to.)
Have you sworn off the tweets, by the way?
Godsdammit. Don’t tell me we’ve gone and ruined our carefully developed confrontational dynamic? (Pleasing to agree on something for once, though.)
Yes, you’re right, of course. No-one I know who writes can support themselves by it. It’s worrying then, that at the moment, most of my income is coming from coaxing words into interesting patterns. S’good for me but bad for my bank balance.
Maybe we are on the opposite sides of a fence here though (blessed relief): as much as I love the process of writing, I do it to inflict the result on others.
Twitter? Uh, meh. I haven’t looked at it in a while and am not feeling like I can be arsed to any time soon. (So I’ll probably start using it again tomorrow). For three reasons, I think: There’s a dearth of good @conversation on it, I got bored doing what I was doing with it, and some personal stuff.
Good thread though, I learned stuff.