Thursday, August 04, 2011

Same Tired Arguments

Misquoting me makes you sound stupid. So does taking what I say out of context, putting words in my mouth, and drawing false conclusions based on things I've said.

That out of the way, I keep seeing the same poor, tired arguments and examples repeated over and over around the Internet. Either folks are writing about self-publishing for the very first time, and naturally falling into the lazy trap of not thinking clearly, or they're purposely trying to disguise failed ideas as something new, like intelligent design and creationism. (Just to be clear--intelligent design is no different than creationism, and creationism is flat-out wrong. Period.)

Here are some outright falsehoods that continue to perpetuate.

Ebooks hurt the eyes.

E-ink technology is passive, just like staring at a piece of paper. There is no eye strain.

I'll never give up print books because I love them too much.

It's always painful to embrace a new technology. But everyone eventually does, and winds up liking it. That's why it gets embraced, and why we no longer read on scrolls.

You can only succeed with ebooks if you have a built-in platform.

There have been too many success stories of people without built-in platforms. If you can't find them, you aren't looking. Try Kindleboards.com.

So much self-pubbed crap will be published, you won't be able to find the good stuff.

Debunked that here.

Low prices devalue books.

The value of a book is how much money it earns, not its cover price. Low priced ebooks sell more copies and make more money.

You can't publish something of quality without a publisher.

Too many examples say otherwise. Go find some.

Konrath is a hypocrite who once said self-pub is bad.

Prior to 2007, self-pubbing was a bad idea. The Kindle changed that, and I changed my mind. I tend to change my mind as new information comes in.

Konrath and Eisler are hypocrites who said they're self publishers, and then they signed with Amazon.

I signed with Amazon for two books, out of 36 I've self-published. Barry signed for one, and has self-pubbed four. We're both still self-publishing. Besides, we've covered, ad nauseum, why Amazon is not a legacy publisher.

Konrath is paying his agent 15% for all of his self-pubbed work.

No, I'm trying it out with one title to see how it works. I'd love to pay someone 15% to manage the business end. We'll see what happens.

Konrath had to self-pub because his sales were lousy.

I've had eight books published by the Big 6. Contrary to some poor reporting, all have earned out their advances, and I kept getting offers up until I stopped submitting. All of my books are still in print. Yet I've made much more money, faster, by self-pubbing.

Self-pubbed books aren't edited.

They are if you hire an editor.

Konrath's legacy sales are the reason is self-pubbed sales are so good.

The opposite is true. My legacy pubbed books are getting a boost from my self-pubbed books, as evidenced by my sales. I sell far more self-pub than legacy pub.

Konrath is intentionally controversial because he wants the attention.

The point of this blog is to help authors, not to sell books. For the past year I've avoided interviews and most speaking engagements. I don't want attention. But I'm not afraid to speak up if I think it will help authors.

Many publishers, agents, booksellers, and even authors, don't want to hear my message, and criticize it, and me. None of their arguments hold any water. They're frightened of the future, and want someone to blame for it, and for their own problems.

Piracy will hurt ebook sales.

No, it won't. And since that blog post, I've been pirated many more times, and my sales have gone up.

Ebooks will never fully replace print.

No one is saying they will. But they're already outselling print, and will continue to be the dominant form of media for quite some time. That said, print will be around forever. There are billions of books on the planet, and they aren't going anywhere (though I do say otherwise in my novel Timecaster.) While the midlist will cease to exist in print, major bestsellers and niche publishers (including self publishers) will still use print, and can still make money from it.

After all, you can go to Best Buy and get Metallica's latest on vinyl. This is, however, for a very small percentage of users, not the general masses.

Publishers are necessary.

I’ve never born witness to a greater comedy of errors than the multitude of mistakes publishers have made in regard to ebooks. Windowing, high prices, the agency model, low royalties, title grabs–it’s embarrassing and an insult to both writers and book buyers. The fact that I’ve been able to make so much more money once I was freed from the constraints of the “experts” shows how little the experts can do for an author. And let’s be honest here–it is all about what a publisher can do for an author. We are the content providers. You need us. We do not need you.

Am I missing any bad arguments? I'm sure I forgot a few.

The bottom line is that it's safer to dismiss me and my comments on a superficial level because analyzing them closer could cause nightmares for those who rely on the publishing industry to earn a living.

What I say isn't Gospel. It is my opinion based on my experience. (If you want to check how ahead of the game I've been on this topic, here's a post from 2009.)

I don't say things without thinking them through and having evidence and logic to back my beliefs up. I'm deliberate. If I'm unsure of something, I experiment and then share the results.
That's what everyone should be doing. Keeping an open mind. Experimenting. Tracking sales and stats and figures. Trying new things. Sharing their results.

Publishing used to be intensely private. No one knew what anyone else was earning or selling. I'm proud to see that trend shifting, with authors more open about their numbers than they've ever been before. The more information we can share, the more we can learn.

Ebooks are the future, the future is happening right now, and self-publishing is a viable way to make money. Anyone who says anything else has an agenda, and they're flat-out wrong. Period.

260 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 260 of 260
KL Mutter said...

I really do think that Hocking will be poised to step into the category of becoming a brand. Mark my words, she'll be prominently displayed at Target and there will be movies too.

The real ace she holds is that two of her most popular series are still entirely her own. And if the situation isn't great, she can go back on her own after this new series. Only with a million more readers than when she started.

JA Konrath said...

I think another big aspect for Hocking is that she doesn't want to be managing the whole show.

Yeah, she should have called me first. Working with a publisher is five times as difficult as going it alone (says the guy who has done both.)

KL Mutter said...

Hi Joe -

I have to admit I'm having a geek moment that you responded to me.

That said, do you also get the impression that Amanda might have gotten a sweetheart deal that would be different than most first legacy authors?

First, they agreed to release electronic versions earlier than print. And the $8 price point isn't exactly industry standard.

I still think the worst-case scenario here is that she'll learn a lot, increase her readership exponentially, make 2 million dollars, and develop her brand. And imagine how many of those new readers will buy her other works.

Like you often say, it's not an ideology. And many people are responding with knee-jerk reactions that verge on calling her a traitor to the cause.

David Gaughran said...

@Phantomimic

Nancy Beck already made some excellent points above, but I would just like to add something.

Success, by definition, is not something the majority of those aiming for it will achieve. Comparing the percentage of those who are "successful" (however you define that) in self-publishing versus the percentage of those who have a publishing deal is comparing apples and oranges.

A truer comparison would be to compare all of those pursuing a trade deal and those who have been published, with all those self-publishing.

But even then, nobody has access to hard numbers, so we are all just voicing opinion and hunches, which won't lead to any kind of resolution.

However, what we can say is that the rise of self-publishing as a viable path has increased options for writers. They can pursue trade publishing or they can self-publish, or they can do both.

This can only be a good thing.

I have no idea what percentage of trade-published or self-published writers are earning a living, and I don't think anyone does.

This whole argument about whether trade publishing or self-publishing is "better" is like arguing about whether its better to work for a company or start your own business, and it ignores all the people that are doing both, and that they aren't mutually exclusive paths.

It also ignores the huge amount of writers that couldn't crack the system and were left with only two choices: toss that book, start another, and try again, or, self-publish.

That was the choice I was faced with. And I'm earning money now. It's not enough to live off, but I've only been doing this a few months, and this month I will cover my rent.

This is the way I look at it: the rise of self-publishing has allowed more writers in publishing as a whole to earn a living.

I think we can all applaud that.

Jude Hardin said...

Working with a publisher is five times as difficult as going it alone (says the guy who has done both.)

How so?

Jude Hardin said...

Interesting article here, btw. Maybe the industry isn't in such dire straights after all.

Unknown said...

Joe,

As a former Catholic, I'm sure you are very familiar with the Bible. So when you say you're an athiest, are you saying that relative to Christianity or have you also studied all of the world's major religions enough to say that you don't believe them either?

{ProtoDoom} said...

@PJ

Oy.VEY. Your statement is pretty irritating.

I'm not Joe, so I'm not speaking for him, but I will speak for myself.

Atheism is not about rejecting Christianity, it is about realizing you don't believe in a higher power. Period.

You don't have to search out every religion to make double dog you sure didn't miss out on some special flavor of religion that makes you believe in a higher power. You just don't believe.

Mike St James said...

Joe, I hate how you beat around the bush. Nice job cutting through the chaff. Great summary of your very well made points. Thanks for the inspiration and encouragement.

Unknown said...

@ Alicia - Not trying to irritate, merely trying to further the conversation.

You say: "Atheism is not about rejecting Christianity, it is about realizing you don't believe in a higher power. Period."

If that's your belief, fine. I wish it wasn't, but that's your choice.

The purpose of my question to Joe was to test whether he lives by his own words. If you are well-versed in a particular religion and choose not to believe it, again, fine.

However, I find it quite illogical not to believe something of which you have little or no knowledge. That's the basic argument that athiests use to "trap" Christians with, so why not test if the reverse is true?

Star-Dreamer said...

"Yet any book or blog that questions these "truths" gets attacked.
We're not all believers in your religions. And we have a right to express our skepticism."

Of COURSE you have that right. Who ever said you didn't? :) Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. That's what free will is all about. duh.

But as far as it goes that Christians "attack" people who don't believe the same as them... Well, I just say that's bull crap. I haven't seen a truly "attack" like comment on this blog yet. Not from Christians anyway. I've seen people with their feathers ruffled and people who have pouted, and people who are neutral and so on.

But, if you want to know what I see (and I'm trying to say this in as neutral a way as possible) it's when the Christians start to stand up for their beliefs that everyone else gets all huffy and all over their case. No one seemed to mind that Joe would question someone's belief, but as soon as one person says, "well, I don't exactly agree with that" everyone else says, "woah! We have someone who must be sadly delusional. Let's attack them and prove to them how wrong they are while making them feel terrible about themselves." I don't see Christians doing that to anyone else... I see them trying to stand up for themselves.

Interesting...

Star-Dreamer said...

"Intelligent design is the only theory that has answers

That's where I stopped reading.

Intelligent design isn't a theory, and it has no answers."

Would it have helped if I had said "possible answers"? because that's what I meant.

I don't care what anyone says about the beginning. All I know is this: it is a fact that none of us can go back to the beginning and find out what happened for ourselves. And since none of us can actually do that, none of us WILL EVER REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING. Ever. We'll never know for sure. Therefore, anything that anyone believes about the beginning of the world, time, and civilization is a THEORY no matter how much people try to prove them true.

You want to get technical? OK. You can't see it. You'll never be able to see it. You can only believe in what you believe happened. Scientists will try forever to figure out what happened, and they will keep changing there ideas because they don't actually KNOW for sure what happened. No amount of research can change that fact.

Come on people. We all know that educated guesses will only take you so far. Geeze!

Intelligent Design is as much a THEORY as Darwinism, or that stupid Alien civilization thing, or evolution or (most unbelievable of all) the big bang. No one knows for sure and everyone is going to keep speculating and keep coming up with answers that they hope is right but can never, ever prove 100% true.

And that's a fact.

Star-Dreamer said...

@P.J.Lincoln: Well said. :)

{ProtoDoom} said...

@PJ

I think that's part of the problem I had with your statement.

The assumption that someone has to be fully versed in a particular religion to not believe in it. It just strikes me as condescending.

Now I realize that my own background gives me a fine set of biases. I was raised a fairly religious Jew, and wow, did I get a lot of 'but seriously, have you heard about Jesus?' Often by people who had zero idea of any other religion than their own.

Anyhow, while this is also a tired argument, it's not about ebook publishing!

I had a conversation with a pal last night, trying to convince her to self-pub some work of hers. She is very worried about after pubbing, someone searching on her name (ie an agent/publisher) would see she's self pubbed and had only sold, say 3k, and it would make her less appealing.

I pointed out just working under a pen name, but I think it's work she still wants identified as her. Other than sending her here and just making her read, any ideas for talking to her about self publishing digitally?

{ProtoDoom} said...

@Jude

I got a little sidetracked, but was very interested in that article.

While parts of the industry look in decent enough shape (w/ increases), mass market pb took a HUGE hit, 16%! It makes me wish we had better data about the indie ebook market share.

I know that since 2008, my reading style has shifted radically. From a mix of used, library, remaindered and new (usually genre only) to almost entirely library ebooks. I got a nook as a gift earlier this year, and I've just been too broke to wander bookstores like I used to.

Now that I've been introduced to indie ebooks, I imagine when I have more dough, I'll just be shunting it there (since that's what I ended up doing w/ music).

Joshua Simcox said...

Star-Dreamer says,

"But, if you want to know what I see (and I'm trying to say this in as neutral a way as possible) it's when the Christians start to stand up for their beliefs that everyone else gets all huffy and all over their case. No one seemed to mind that Joe would question someone's belief, but as soon as one person says, 'well, I don't exactly agree with that' everyone else says,'woah! We have someone who must be sadly delusional. Let's attack them and prove to them how wrong they are while making them feel terrible about themselves'".

I'm not accusing Joe or anyone else of being intentionally guilty of this, but I suppose that's kind of how I felt when I read Joe's initial post.

Perhaps I'm guilty myself of having one of those knee-jerk reactions that Joe was so critical of in a previous post. For that, I can only apologize.

I'm not an evangelist and I have no interest at all in forcing my beliefs on others (I find the thought rather horrifying, actually).

My only thought was "Joe, I like you. I like your books. I spend money on you. Feel free to believe or disbelieve in whatever you like, and do continue sharing your opinions, even the borderline arrogant ones, because we can all learn much from you.

"But please don't insult me. Don't call me an idiot, or try to make me feel badly about myself because of what I choose to believe."

Again, my reaction was perhaps a bit of a knee-jerk, and I no longer feel that Joe was trying to be deliberately insulting.

But I understand where you're coming from, Star-Dreamer, and I do wish that Joe had finished reading your post. There's some good stuff there.

--Joshua Simcox

Star-Dreamer said...

"I'm not an evangelist and I have no interest at all in forcing my beliefs on others (I find the thought rather horrifying, actually)."

I'm not one either, Josh. :) I just like a good debate. And I like to stand up for my beliefs. I didn't feel like you were forcing yourself on anyone else, or accusing Joe either. But I liked the fact that you said, "hey, wait a minute!" and took a stand. We don't have to force our beliefs on others for us to stand up for what we believe to be right. :D

"But I understand where you're coming from, Star-Dreamer, and I do wish that Joe had finished reading your post. There's some good stuff there."

Thank you. :)

Star-Dreamer said...

Joe: went to that site you posted for me to look at.

Evolution? Really? *shakes head* That's your comeback?

Ok, perhaps I should apologize for that first reaction. After all, you are certainly entitled to believe what you will. And I have to agree that there is some truth behind evolution as long as said adaptions stay within one species. ONE SPEICES mind.

I mean, it's obvious that a hundred years ago no one believed there might be such things as ipads or smart phones or ereaders or even laptop computers. Shoot! We were still trying to figure out how to make cars! So a type of mental evolution is understandable. Expected even. And, I agree that certain animal adaptations involving creatures learning to deal with our crazy all-too-humanized world is more than understandable... it's evident.

But when it comes down to whether or not man came from apes and apes came from fish or whatever... that's just... nuts. crazy. loony, really... unless you have the option of Intelligent Design.

And now you're probably gonna want to stop reading again, but bear with me for a moment, kk?

Ok… so we have a fish. And that fish grew legs. Interesting. What made that fish grow legs? Someone says “well, it was a change incited by the environment… an evolution that was needed in order for the fish to survive.” Ok. But how did the fish know that? What gave it that intelligence? Because that is a type of intelligence. A fish doesn’t just KNOW something without there being a reason. “Well, everything has a knowledge of what’s needed to survive… its instinct.” But what gave the fish that instinct? What gave it that knowledge that it needed to survive? What made it know?

Eric Christopherson said...

In its definition of what is a book, the report counted professional and scholarly journals and databases, multimedia teaching materials and mobile apps.

That is one liberal definition of a book. Definitions (and assumptions) drive results.

And IMO a snapshot of last year isn't very illuminating. You'd need trend data to spot any icebergs up ahead.

Star-Dreamer said...

Or how ‘bout we talk apes and humans. The genes of an ape are like… what? 2% different from the genes of a human? But you see, that still leaves a 2% difference, and the genes and atoms within that 2% equal into the thousands. All of those genes within the 2% range would have to do the exact same thing over and over and over again in multiple instances for there even to be the SLIGHTEST chance that humans evolved from apes… and let me tell you something else that has been proven… nature doesn’t like to play that way. Apes are no more related to humans than cows are related to birds… a species might evolve within their own species, but they don’t evolve into different species. Or at least, they don't evolve into different species without a solid reasoning behind that evolution and SOMETHING had to put that reasoning there. A bunch of atoms coming together in the shape of a fish and suddenly deciding, "oh let's change into a lizard or something" does NOT just happen.

And that skeleton of the ape-man? There were pig bones included in that one.

Now let’s talk intelligent design (for this example, I’m talking intelligent design that doesn’t include a “higher power”, and believe me… I’ve heard arguments about it). Well then, what sort of intelligence are we talking about? The intelligence of an atom? The intelligence of an inanimate object? What gave that object it’s intelligence to do what it did? How was it that that atom and its fellow atoms KNEW to do what they did in order to create a world? A race? Can it ever be proven, as far back as the beginning of the world? Everyone knows that the answer to that last one is “NO!”. We can’t ever recreate the circumstances that helped evoke the creation of the world, and if we ever tried we’d kill ourselves.

Now let’s step back and take a look at this silly theory about Alien science or whatever… the thought that Alien’s must have somehow come down and helped poor man in his most primitive form become something of himself. Well now… what made the aliens? How was there world created? How did they learn about technology? Who were they? Does anyone know the answer? Will anyone ever actually discover a true answer? Can anyone even PROVE beyond any doubt that they existed? Again, a dead end.

And so forth and so on. Scientists can go back and forth about this subject forever and ever, and never come to a solid conclusion about how the world was created and how things were designed and how the world continues to work. You think the world would be half what it is now if a few atoms simply decided to put themselves together and create something of themselves? What incited that decision? Oh, I know! They decided to make themselves into a monkey that would later turn into a man! But what made them think to do that? How did they know that’s what would happen?

We are a curious race, designed to ask questions and find answers. Then why would we settle on a so called “fact” that can’t actually be proven? This has nothing to do with faith so much as it has to do with science in itself. Faith is what you make of it, but facts, as you say Joe “require the scientific method, not personal feelings.” So the very “fact” that your personal feelings say that creationism is wrong – period – actually counteracts what you say about facts. Because you can’t actually PROVE that it’s wrong beyond any shadow of any doubt, can you?

Nope, can't, because you can't go back to the beginning of the world, so everything assumed about the beginning, no matter how much people try to prove one thing or another, can never actually be proved 100% as immovable fact, therefore making it a theory. And theories, no matter how much research people like to think are behind them, are still susceptible to being proven wrong.

Star-Dreamer said...

Now let’s step back and take a look at this silly theory about Alien science or whatever… the thought that Alien’s must have somehow come down and helped poor man in his most primitive form become something of himself. Well now… what made the aliens? How was there world created? How did they learn about technology? Who were they? Does anyone know the answer? Will anyone ever actually discover a true answer? Can anyone even PROVE beyond any doubt that they existed? Again, a dead end.

And so forth and so on. Scientists can go back and forth about this subject forever and ever, and never come to a solid conclusion about how the world was created and how things were designed and how the world continues to work. You think the world would be half what it is now if a few atoms simply decided to put themselves together and create something of themselves? What incited that decision? Oh, I know! They decided to make themselves into a monkey that would later turn into a man! But what made them think to do that? How did they know that’s what would happen?

We are a curious race, designed to ask questions and find answers. Then why would we settle on a so called “fact” that can’t actually be proven? This has nothing to do with faith so much as it has to do with science in itself. Faith is what you make of it, but facts, as you say Joe “require the scientific method, not personal feelings.” So the very “fact” that your personal feelings say that creationism is wrong – period – actually counteracts what you say about facts. Because you can’t actually PROVE that it’s wrong beyond any shadow of any doubt, can you?

Nope, can't, because you can't go back to the beginning of the world, so everything assumed about the beginning, no matter how much people try to prove one thing or another, can never actually be proved 100% as immovable fact, therefore making it a theory. And theories, no matter how much research people like to think are behind them, are still susceptible to being proven wrong.

{ProtoDoom} said...

Wall of text crits you for 126,548,651,231. You die.

Star-Dreamer: So, if science can't be absolutely concrete, it's not worth developing theories on?

Anywho, what do you think about the article Jude posted about publishing expanding since 2008?

Star-Dreamer said...

"Star-Dreamer: So, if science can't be absolutely concrete, it's not worth developing theories on?"

:D not at all. I'm glad you pointed that out though.

No, that's most certainly not what I meant. Like I said before, humans are creatures who are absolutely bent on finding out truth and facts. It's in our nature. I'ts part of our drive.

What I simply meant was the undermining one theory for another, or saying that one theory is completely wrong while another is completely right can never be based on facts, simply because a theory is not fact but theory.

In my mind, we should absolutely continue to develop the theories presented to us. That is, after all, how facts are discovered. However, in the case of the beginning of the world, it is simply a matter of personal belief no matter what anyone says. Because, the irrefutable truth is that no one can go back to the very beginning and prove their theory 100% correct. Therefore, it is childish to put down one person's belief in a theory and say that it is completely wrong, only to state that another theory is right. Because in the end, they are both only theories and no one can know for sure whether one is right and the other wrong. They are both simply beliefs. :)

Star-Dreamer said...

"Anywho, what do you think about the article Jude posted about publishing expanding since 2008?"

Jude? Article?

I want to post more about this article and publishing (and I promise that I will! I love Joe's incite in the publishing world for the most part). I've just gotten a bit caught up in the debate. Like I said, I love a good debate and I was in the mood for one. :D I don't get enough chance to do this where I'm from. lol!

Alexis Harrington said...

Oh, for crying in the night . . . I'd like to sit on my cyber rooftop with a bucket full of used catbox litter balloons and throw one at everybody you quoted or used as an example in your post, Joe. "Same Tired Arguments," indeed. Let those who want their trad published books buy them--who's stopping them? Many of us are doing quite nicely, thank you, with the new technology and working for ourselves instead of someone else. I, for one, have gotten my books to more readers in e-book form than I ever did as a print-published author.

Anonymous said...

Hi Joe. Could you answer me a question?

A few posts back, I asked about the value of traditional publishing for good money vs. going the e-route. You said, basically, that if the money's good, go for it.

The question I asked was in reference to an on-line friend who used to write fanfiction. She was good, and went and wrote an original book and wanted to publish it. I thought 'great! Take it to Kindle!'

But she wanted to do things the traditional way because she was confident she'd get decent money with an agent. She was right, she got an agent and a major book deal, so there was no issue there. My confusion is over what happened next.

She had what I thought was a great idea. She was going to do a blog dedicated to the side-by-side progression of her trad. book as it went through all its steps along side another book she was going to put up in the Kindle store, figuring it was win-win because the Kindle book would bring in money while she was waiting for the trad. book to hit shelves. But then all of a sudden she changes her mind. She says that her publisher might not want her to do it because then the book they put out wouldn't be her debut book, so she's just going to put the other book on her blog since she doesn't think it would sell.

This sounds crazy to me. Is this some kind of standard publisher reasoning I can't fathom? I want to tell her she's being silly and to just publish the other book, but if this is normal, I don't want to goad her into something that will get her in trouble or something.

Daniel Smith said...

Joe, I'd like to clarify one point in your parenthetical: I agree there's not much difference between the two sides, but you're really comparing intelligent design (ID) to 'young-earth' creationism. Creationism comes in several flavors. Young-earth is the dominant form.

That said, both are wrong because they are not science. The court cases bear this out if one bothers to read them directly and not second-hand. The judges ruled against them on this basis.

So, I agree with you if you meant young-earth creationism. But there is an old-earth form of creationism that is scientifically valid from an organization called Reasons to Believe.

Everything they propose or publish is scientifically testable. They accept the hypothesis of a creator-god as necessary for the origin of life and the universe and they identify that being as the judeo-christian god.

They are currently developing what they call their testable creation model and it's already yielded some very intuitive insights - particularly regarding life's development on the earth over the past 4 billion years. It's a fully-functional model that includes predictions that can be used for comparisons as additional and more precise data comes along. They're doing it right from a scientific perspective and so far, the evidence for their model has been growing.

This is as opposed to the prevailing scientific model which has yet to identify more than a handful of processes that barely begin to account for the origin of life by chemical reactions. (The Miller-Urey experiment is now moot since the atmosphere of the early earth has been proven to be unlike the primordial soup assumed in their experiment.)

It's fascinating stuff.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the writing get's out there is way more important than the medium. So whether you are unraveling parchment, flipping pages or switching on a device, as long as the writer's thoughts are consumed and pondered upon by the consumer, does it really matter?
Create, Collaborate, Publish

Tracy Sharp - Author of the Leah Ryan Series said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tracy Sharp - Author of the Leah Ryan Series said...

Just downloaded Truck Stop and LOVE it! Excellent story! I'm reading it on my lunch and don't want to go back to work.

Jack just walked into the diner.

I may have to sneak peeks here and there. Fantastic stuff! I'm a fan for life!

Stephen Leather said...

I love this blog..... where do you people find the time????

Nicholas La Salla said...

Nancy,

You raise a great point. When I was set to be published by Wizards of the Coast, they sent me a folder with a DVD to watch and some webpages to look over to help me with MY promotional efforts.

MY promotional efforts. They had no plans to do anything except send a few ARC's to a couple authors and magazines and such. That was the extent of their involvement.

Beyond that, I had to organize book tours and signings, all out of my pocket. (That must have been why they gave me an advance . . . wait, that's not fair!)

It's irritating, but it's a truth of the industry.

Best,

Nick

Unknown said...

Holy Cow - if you read every comment, you are awesome! I found you months ago through Amanda Hocking and I am devoted to your opinion. Ironically, I went to find you on twitter, and found this tweet at the top of my search: "self-publishing is not a stepping stone to traditional publishing. It worked for Amanda Hocking, but more often than not it's an obstacle." Now, this isn't directly related to your Same Tired Arguments post, but it's in the vein. Some of us just want to get our book(s) out there so it (they) can be read! Traditional Publishing may always be a pipe dream, but getting read is much more possible with e-publishing. SO anyway, thanks for another great post.

evilphilip said...

Anywho, what do you think about the article Jude posted about publishing expanding since 2008?"

I think it is the same thing I said about a hundred posts ago that people mostly ignored because it doesn't match the overall theme of this blog.

Anonymous said...

Loss of Borders means fewer sales

So people will read less because Borders closed? Other stores are already seeing an increase in business due to the closing of Borders.

I think there will be a natural progression towards ebooks, but I don't think it'll be be driven by book store closures.

Ender Chadwick said...

"I think there will be a natural progression towards ebooks, but I don't think it'll be be driven by book store closures."

Certainly there are other factors in play too but I disagree with that statement, I think that will be one of several driving reasons.

I know 2 people who have ordered Kindles due to Borders closing. In their town there was Borders and a smaller bookstore, that I'm told, has a very limited selection.

True that there were other options available to them, like ordering paperbacks and such online, or driving to a not-so-nearby Barnes and Noble, but they didn't.

David Gaughran said...

@E.C. Belikov

Agreed.

And even if they are not keen to switch to e-books right now, once they become an Amazon customer rather than a Borders customer, they will be continually confronted with Kindle ads and the price differences between print and digital will become stark.

It might even be the first time they become exposed to indie books too, many of which are digital only.

In fact, we will see a lot more digital-first books from publishers too. That will sway some.

KL Mutter said...

I know several people that are right on the edge of going digital. Many of these are people that currently make use of book sharing websites or purchasing very cheap used books through half.com.

After a point, they will realize that digital books are just as cheap when you factor in time and gas and postage. And you can sample!

Nancy Beck said...

She says that her publisher might not want her to do it because then the book they put out wouldn't be her debut book, so she's just going to put the other book on her blog since she doesn't think it would sell.

@Anonymous 8:56 - Question for you. Is the book she was going to put on Kindle in the same universe as the trad pubbed book? If it is, I would think the trad publisher wants to get stuff out there first. Your friend could then wait until after the trad pubbed book comes out to publish on Kindle.

If it's not in the same universe as the trad pubbed book, color me as confused...I don't see what the difference is. However, your friend should first check the contract language. You never know what restrictions lawyers may put into contracts - can't give you examples because I've never been trad pubbed nor am I a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV, either ;-)).

Hope it all works out.

I.J.Parker said...

I just got my first check from Kindle. Thank you, Joe Konrath!

David said...

E-book readers do seem to be sort of catching on, even for people who are not early adapters.

This can give you a feel for readers who are on the borderline:

http://davidfweisman.blogspot.com/2011/08/you-cant-read-whole-library.html

B. Magnarella said...

Self-pubbed books aren't edited.

They are if you hire an editor.

All right, just LOL'd with a mouthful of coffee. Thanks.

The question of whether or not to hire an editor comes up quite a lot. My two cents: Do it. It's an expense, yes, but more an investment. Your name is your brand, and your work should be as compelling and polished as possible. A good editor is indispensable. Just do a search on Kindle Boards for recommended ones. Also, David Gaughran offers very sound advice on hiring an editor in his book, Let's Get Digital.

Walter Knight said...

Having a vision no one else sees can be frustrating, but it can also make you rich. I feel better every time I cash a royalty check.

Nick Kelly said...

Technology changes the way people engage each other and information. The masses find something that provides a service, or makes life easier, and that can turn into an industry trend. You don't need me to explain the convenience of a kindle. I poured through four books on flights last week, in the middle seat, without carrying an extra bag, or worrying about fitting them into my travel plans.

I just finished Jim Butcher's "Blood Rites" (one of the Dresden Files) and at the end, Amazon made it simple for me to pick up the next book in the series and continue to enjoy the character I love to read about.

I appreciate Joe's information as a writer who has never had to go through this battle, but also as a musician who has gone through the "we're signed to a label" treadmill a few times.

Thanks for continuing to digest new information and to share your opinion with us, Joe!

nK

Jean Bauhaus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caliwatcher said...

I think a lot of it is just that people are a bit scared that the ground is changing in the book industry and changing fast. Things are different today then they were even a year ago, and five years ago? No comparison.
If you come up with reasons why it won't work, then you don't have to keep up. Sadly, that's never really been a useful strategy.
Very nice and informative blog!

Claude Nougat said...

Thanks, Joe, as always, you're spot on! And it's so refreshing to read you, and uplifting!

As a writer, I've been turned off by the whole legacy publisher scene because my book is cross-genre and therefore doesn't really fit anywhere!

As a reader, I've been turned off by so many of the titles put out and touted by legacy publishers - including their sustained one-track publication of "big names" instead of looking at what these "big names" actually produce. Crap. Yes, sorry for saying that, but it's often the case, isn't it?

I won't name names, but I was sorely disappointed by John Le Carré's latest novel, and there are so many like him out there, disappointing us book after book...all because legacy publishers have reduced themselves to selling names rather than books!

Ebony McKenna. said...

Perhaps people think we'll be taking their paperbacks away?

They're little Stewie from Family Guy shouting from the second floor 'I don't like change!'

It will be similar to what happened in the music industry. The places you buy from will be different, the places that produce them will be different . . . the good stuff will get known and sell well (word of mouth is powerful), and the crap will sit there stinking up the place and we'll ignore it.

You can still buy things on CD or vinyl if you want, or buy digitally - the same way you'll still be able to buy paper books if you want them, or download digital books.

I read a heap of ebooks and paperbacks and what I love most . . . is a really good story.

(ps, if you suddenly get a whole lot of comments and followers from Australia, blame Bob Mayer who gave good workshop at the RWA conference in Melbourne and mentioned you).

Free Book Reviews said...

As I have said before, if the "big 6" plan to have a future in publishing they may want to consider taking on the role of a pod service as I think that many authors are going to want to keep the rights to their ebook. But I also think that the "big 6" could help the community by printing the paperbackbook as a specialty item as pod services do.

Nick said...

Can't see if anyone has mentioned this yet but Amazon now have a dedicated Kindle Indie page:

http://www.amazon.com/b/?node=3059252011


Some of the authors advertised there I have done interviews with like Ruth Harris.

http://indieebooks.blogspot.com/

Hunter Shea said...

Amen brother!

Anonymous said...

i keep looking at the blog and keep getting this same tried old thread. When's a new post forthcoming?

snahkaboo said...

Mr. Konrath -

I believe you've helped many authors and would be authors, thank you. I am convinced self-publishing will out earn the previously conventional path for writers, with the exception of an agent reeling in the adaptation of your work into box office success with subsequent multi-media, gaming and marketing of toys, games, comics, etc. The only way to fly in the end.

But I do have a question regarding your "period" stance on creationism.

What if God simply created an ape that evolves? I'm sure time isn't HIS concern.

Better yet, what if HE just wrote the "program" and when HE said "let there be light" that was metaphorically the same as typing "run" and hitting "enter"?

I believe Darwinism and Genesis may not be mutually exclusive.

Anyway, thanks so much. Sincerely.

E from Denver.

Anonymous said...

Young man, you have made my day by making me laugh. Thank you!

A man after my own heart; tell it like it is. Love it!

Anonymous said...

I think my comment just went missing, never hit enter before you're ready, right?

What I wanted to say is that you made my day by making me laugh. You're a man after my own heart; tell it like it is. Love it!

Anonymous said...

Great post, really makes going the self-pub route seem right. It feels right, especially if you're ready to fight for your work, which I think most successful writers always are.

Keep up the good work!

BURIED IN BOOKS said...

While e-books may not hurt your eyes, they cause me migraines just like working on the computer too long causes them. So maybe everyone else will embrace the new technology. As for me, I'll either have to print out e-books on my computer (not likely) or re read the books I have if print books are no longer made. Everyone is a lot of people like never is a long time.

Heather

BURIED IN BOOKS said...

Hmm, I might have missed the point of the article. I thought it was about e-publishing and the wave of the future, but in reading comments it has somehow harped on the Intelligent Design vs. Creationism part of the article. Please just disregard my comment as I obviously missed the point.

Heather
Is your publishing blog perhaps hidden somewhere else?

veinarmor said...

Best post on the subject I've yet experienced. I've analyzed the market as well and reached the same conclusions. I've also switched to an e-reading device and though I would never badmouth a paper book (I've spent untold pleasurable hours with them) e-ink pearl screens are easy on these tired eyeballs. Not to mention it weighs nothing, has a light for night reading, and holds more books than I can read in the next several years.

Zette said...

The biggest problem I have with both sides is often an 'either/or' sort of attitude. You are trying different things to see what works. You have that opportunity because you are in control. This has nothing to do with being a hypocrite. It's being wise and taking advantage of your ability to see what works because it is in your hands. Adaptation to change is one of humanities greatest abilities and we can see it even in this. None of us are 'hidebound' (so to speak) and must continue in one way when something new comes along.

And for all we know, everything could change again next month.

A few years ago, I was still in the 'no, don't self-publish' realm as well. Several of my published friends (Holly Lisle, C.J. Cherryh, Jane Fancher among others) finally brought me out of the dark ages. In the few months I've actually been part of the Indie revolution, I've sold more than I ever did in my few print publications -- and that without a huge amount of marketing because I'm still stumbling around on that part.

I own Forward Motion for Writers; this year we have an Indie section. I publish Vision: A Resource for Writers and this year it has an Indi area as well. I have a small company of associated Indi authors which will soon have more than just my work out. (Mine to start with because I am prolific and we could experiment with some of my material.) We have our own editor.

But that doesn't mean I won't send something to a traditional publisher if I think it's a good idea. Granted, I know to watch those contracts.

No one is required to become an independent author. I have other friends who are very happy where they are in the traditionally published world and others whose dream is to see their book on a shelf in a store. (Let's hope the stores survive.) I love print and ebook. I read some of both almost every day. I will not give up my print books. But I won't give up my ebooks, either.

Right now, at least, it's not an either/or world in any sense. Embrace it all. This is the most exciting time to be an author since the invention of the printing press.
.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 260 of 260   Newer› Newest»