Listen to this lesson (4:51)
[audio:http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/authorcartel/Rule%201.6%20-%20how%20to%20publish%20your%20writing.mp3]
Benjamin Franklin. Self-published author.
There are only two things you need to do to be a successful writer:
- Write your story.
- Share your story with the world.
That’s it. Those are the only two things you need to do to connect with your audience, build your Cartel, and create a career as a writer.
I asked Seth Godin, “What is the single most important thing I can do to become a successful writer? (My guess: “Make more art”?)”
And Seth said, “Yep. And the second most important thing is to share it.”
That’s it. You don’t need a plan. You don’t need to know anything about marketing. You just need to write a good story (not necessarily a great one or a perfect one) and share it.
Redefine What Publishing Means To You
You think publishing is when Harper Collins sells your beautiful, paperback book in Barnes & Noble and sends you a check every quarter, but as we did with the word “story,” let’s look it up.
Wikipedia says, “Publishing is the process of the production and dissemination of literature, music, or information—the activity of making information available to the general public.”
Question: Do you see Harper Collins or Houghton Mifflin or any other publisher mentioned in this definition? Do you see Barnes & Nobles or Amazon or any other book retailer?
Of course not. The definition of publishing looks a lot more like sharing stories than the “publishing industry.” The publishing industry can help you share your story, but you don’t need it.
Why You Should Strongly Consider “Self-Publishing”
I don’t like the term self-publishing because it feels like publishing with an asterisk. The truth is that when you self-publish, you are just sharing your story, the same as every storyteller has done since the first campfire story.
Famous self-publishers include Benjamin Franklin, Marcel Proust, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Walt Whitman, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Virginia Woolf.
Self-publishing clearly has a storied history (and yes, that pun is intended).
On top of that, if you’re just starting out with writing, self-publishing might be the right decision even if you get a publishing contract. As Elizabeth Craig, an author who has novels published with Penguin and also self-publishes, wrote in a recent article, self-publishing is a business, and if you write a book that doesn’t sell, it could be “the end of your traditionally published career.” If your book fails, publishers would be forced to destroy leftover copies of your book to save space in their warehouses, and other publishers would then be extremely hesitant to purchase your second book after your first flopped.
However, if you self-publish and your book doesn’t sell, the consequences are much less severe. You write a few more books, and slowly you start to build your audience. Soon, new readers begin buying your old books (which are still in print because you published them with print-on-demand and don’t have to store them in a warehouse in Manhattan), and all of a sudden you’re not a failed writer but a late bloomer.
In the end, self-publishing is not publishing with an asterisk. It’s story sharing. If you choose to self-publish, whether it’s your first choice or not, don’t look down on yourself. Honor your process for what it is.
Remember, the first rule of Story Cartel is stories are meant to be shared, whether they’re published by Harper Collins or through CreateSpace or told to your kids as a bed time story. It’s not about validation or discrimination or good or bad. It’s about connecting with another human. That is the only metric that matters.
What do you think? Is publishing only traditional publishing? Does self-publishing and “story sharing” count?
In the next lesson, we’re going to talk about who you should publish to. Click here to move on.
Call me conservative, but somehow, in my eyes, publishing means traditional publishing. To me, it’s the first affirmation that there is some value to what I have to say. Also, whether right or wrong, I tend to feel that traditionally published books are better edited. It may be a prejudice, but it will probably take a while longer until I get over it.
As far as whether self-publishing and “story-sharing” count, I suppose the question is, count as what? The bottom line and what matters in the end is not whether the story is self published,shared or traditionally published, but whether the story is well-told and has merit. As I said before, my preference for traditional may be a prejudice, but I would not rule out the value of a good story because of its publication history. And of course there are plenty of traditionally published books that I have read that I felt weren’t particularly meritorious either…
The problem is that traditional publishers are even more conservative than you. You know how many times Harry Potter was rejected? Nine times. Stephen King’s Carrie was rejected 30 times. Dune (one of my favorite books) was rejected 23 times. Publishers can rarely spot winners from losers, and yet that’s what they’re looking for. Books that win (i.e. make money). The audience is a better curator for story than publishers, so instead of looking for validation from publishers, let’s look for it from the audience. Because the truth is that if you have an audience, publisher’s will court you instead of the other way around.
It’s true that traditionally published books are usually better edited, but that doesn’t need to be the case for everyone. It certainly shouldn’t be the case for Story Cartel authors.
But I LOVE what you say here: “I suppose the question is, count as what? The bottom line… [is] whether the story is well-told and has merit.” I couldn’t agree more. Let’s worry about telling really good stories.
I’ve been rethinking self-publishing, since reading much about the business of publishing and how it’s gotten harder for writers – smaller advances, less profit – since the Great Recession. I have a friend who waited 20 years to publish her book by trying to get an agent. She is finally taking matters into her own hands and plans to self-publish. She’s a talented writer with a daughter who is published by Knopf, so she’s watched how the system works.
Having said that, some self-published books are so bad they tend to cloud the water for good writers. That’s the challenge, I think. How to make your work stand out in a venue where everyone has equal opportunity, no matter how good or bad the writing is.
Self-publishing does matter, as does story sharing. I think we’re in a new age for writing, one that will redefine how we see the avenues to tell our stories. It’s an exciting time.
…and a scary one too!
Haha. True, Kate.
I guess my concern about self publishing is that with traditional publishing, a lot of effort goes into maintaining the quality of the finished product. A self published book still needs rigorous checking, usually by a professional editor, which can be quite expensive. It is easy for the author of a self published book to overlook simple errors, even typos, let alone more complex issues such as characterisation and plot development. Even keeping the characters consistent can be a challenge. With a traditional publisher, there is a team of editors to oversee this. With self publishing there is only the author and maybe one other person (the outside editor) to do it.
I agree that you need editing, Steve. That being said, you would be surprised at how much of the editing falls on the author’s head at some (but not all) publishing houses. Much of the time, publishers will even just hire outside editors anyway, people that you could hire yourself. Publishers are nice enough to pay for it, but of course, they take 82% of the profits, so it’s a fair trade. And we’re going to talk about how you can have a team of editors to help you make your book as good as it could be too (i.e. your Cartel).
I’m not knocking the publishing industry. They still provide value, namely, validation, money up front, and a system for “story sharing.” But each of those are getting less important as self-publishing gains momentum. They no longer assure validation (E.L. James self-published, btw). They have less money to give up front. And you can learn the system yourself (which is what we’re doing here).
Does that make sense Steve? Further thoughts?
I am still very on the fence on this one, but I liked what Chuck Wendig had to say about self-publishing vs the Traditional route:http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/01/15/what-flavor-of-publishing-will-you-choose/
I’m still undecided, and at times I thinking ‘What the hell, lets throw caution to the wind and throw my stories on Watt-pad, see what that brings’ . I do think all of the options require lots of leg work and self-promotion, as well as helping others out on the way.
From what little I’ve read on the issue, the publishing industry is changing rapidly. Many different ways to self-publish are being tried, so that the question doesn’t just become whether or not to self-publish, but how to go about doing that. I hope we’re going to learn about some of the options and how to rise above the poor-quality books that have been turning many people off of self-published books. I like the idea of retaining control, and gaining the experience of taking a book from manuscript to market. I’m saving money to pay for editing and cover art (my guess it this can be done well for about $2500?). What scares me is the marketing.
Marketing is not scary, just takes time, a great plan, and action on that plan (which involves collaboration with others). Marketing is simply getting the word out.
That’s a great point, Ann, and the marketing is doable. That’s why it’s important to lay the groundwork by sharing small, building a few relationships, practicing launching things on a small level before you get to a big share. Sharing your story is the same as launching a book except for the number of people involved and the planning process.
I do have a feeling that traditional publishing is going the way of the dodo like Ann says. Of course, quite a lot of what’s self-published may be verbose, say nothing new or interesting and be full of grammatical errors. But, I think as we all get better at this, the stigma of self-publishing is going to go away. It’s a pity. I grew up in a bookstore and love them dearly. I love hardcover books and the smell of book glue. I love the bookish men and women searching in the stacks and finding love between and outside the covers. But… in the final analysis, it’s sharing out stories and touching others that counts.
They do have libraries in Singapore, don’t they Audrey? I think, in the end, this is going to be a good thing for hardcover books. Audiophiles still listen to LPs and Bibliophiles will revere books all the more.
Yes Joe, they do. They have beautiful multi-million stories. But Borders closed and also a wonderful Asia-focused bookstore called Pages. We’ve got a Kinokuniya which is great and something called Times which has horrible commercial branches all over the place, and then something else called Popular which specializes in testing books (i.e. assessment practices for school children)! So there HAH! I use the American Club library for my hardcover books and love it.
Self-publishing counts, I’ve done it: blogging, CreateSpace, even back in grade school writing & printing my own little newspaper (and selling copies for small change). I had classmates as guest writers, too. We shared our stories with each other. Underground, sure. It was still publishing, even with a DOS word processor and dot matrix printer. (Wow, the memories!)
I LOVE that, Ryan. Underground story sharing is easy to look down on, but nearly all of the great writers wrote in the underground early on.
The more I read in this course the more I realise the importance of the few literary steps I have already taken. Realising my very limited writing ability I was reluctant for years to share my story. This year, My blog changed all that. I received some very positive feedback which in turn gave me the confidence to enter this course.
I realise now the importance of publishing in any format, getting out there and taking the good with the bad. It is all invaluable experience and I for one feel as if I have awakened from a delusional stupor in which traditional publishing was the only acceptable format.
I’m glad you’re waking up out of your stupor! Traditional publishing is great, but often the best road to it is through a variety less unconventional formats. I had a similar experience with blogging, and I’m glad you’re finding it so helpful.
I love self publishing because of what it offers authors – freedom of choice. I was listening to an interview with a best selling author who has recently started self publishing in addition to traditional because she’s able to publish books more quickly. She said that she actually makes more money with her self published works — she also has the large fan base already built. (I wish I could remember who the author was.)
No, publishing is not only ‘traditional’ and hat’s good because ‘traditional’ publishing houses are dying OR changing themesleves into somehting more akin to self publishing. Traditional publishing is a very expensive proposition. On line, slef publishing reaches even more reders at a lesser cost to both. Self publishing and story haring probably counts even more because the author has the opportunity to reach more readers & readers have a greater opportunity to find and obtain the books they want to read.
I have to answer, yes, to that since I am a self published author. I would be defeating the purpose of joining this cartel if I said that publishing is only traditional. Story telling counts, BUT if it is to be laid down in print, by any means, it must be grammatically correct. Story sharing by oral telling is another genre and is where story telling began in the first place. Important. Valuable. Necessary.
Self-publishing is not the dirty word it was just a few years ago, and I have people tell me they want to self-pub all the time. Many times I inwardly cringe because I know they are not ready yet to publish. Merit, as another person said here, or quality is what counts. That having been said, I think most of us secretly surely wouldn’t turn down Harper Collins if the deal was sweet!!
Self-publishing has become a much more palatable and possible option over the past several years requiring the author to be an entrepreneur and take responsibility for the full gamut of tasks beyond writing a good story-i.e.,marketing, promotion. The key issue as I see it is to maintain the same commitment to excellence in self-publishing- by hiring professional editors, book cover designers,etc-as a traditional publisher would. I like the hybrid approach of keeping options open for either.
I like the idea of hybrid publishing, but the practice is often prohibitively expensive for many authors. But what I see is that no matter which you choose, even traditional, you’ll have to market your book. I talked to an author who’s written 17 books, most with traditional publishers, and he told me ALL publishers are “famously bad” at marketing. We need to have the expectation of ourselves that we’ll market our own books if we want them to connect with an audience.
YES! I believe that they are all a form of publishing. The only thing with self publishing is for the writer to make sure they have a professional looking cover and also a well edited manuscript. If everything looks professional, readers will believe the writer is. But if the writer isn’t – then it will show… and that may injure the writer’s story sharing reputation.
But yes, I believe that publishing is publishing, no matter what route it takes to get there.
I believe those who think traditional publishing is the only way to go is “old school thought.” I plan to self-publish. Three years ago, I wouldn’t have thought about considering that venue, but the world of publishing is changing. I agree with Devin – make certain you have a professional looking cover and have a well edited manuscript. I’ve read several self-published books that obviously didn’t have either. To me, that would be more detrimental for a writers career than a self-published book that didn’t initially sell.
For me, it’s not that self-publishing is less than traditional publishing. It’s that I only have so much time in my day to write, much less dope my way through how to market my work. I had this rosy notion that if I could be picked up by a publisher, they would have the time, expertise and money to put it out there. Now that the literary agents are making my self-publishing choice for me (12 rejections and counting) I’m terrified by the prospect of having to write AND market AND do both well enough to engage an audience beyond my closest family and friends. I admire those who are that multi-talented; I worry I’m not.
Yes, it’s definitely a lot. The good news is that you don’t have to learn how to do it all now. A writer I respect, who’s self-published and traditionally published her books, said the best thing you can do to market your work is to write your next book. So as you learn a few of these things, make sure you keep doing what you’re best at: writing!
Having self-published my first book last year, I have to admit that ever since, whenever someone asks about me being published, I felt obligated to explain it “with an asterisk”. “Yea, but it’s just self-publishing.” Looking back on it, that’s only a discredit to me and my work. This is really a lesson to me to start looking at the concept differently and taking more pride in what I’ve accomplished. But at the same time, in all honesty, it’s hard to get over that self publishing is “lesser than” traditional.
I think that traditional publishing, self-publishing and “story sharing” all count. Your stories are getting out there and someone is going to read them. I compare them with working in a corporate office vs. being in business for yourself vs. creating a product that is for sale. Story sharing can be a first step in self publishing. Self-publishing can be a first step in traditional publishing.
I think they all count.
Self-publishing better count because that is my plan! This lesson only pours gas on my fire to “story share”, self-publish and grow with my writing. Thanks! I needed the encouragement!
The traditional publishing landscape has changed a lot. Self-publishing lowers the bar to entry into the publishing world, it allows a much wider variety of voices to exist in the marketplace, and it gives authors the opportunity to control their own careers in a way never possible before. It also gives authors who want to be traditionally published a “proving ground” where they can explore and test their skills, and show agents and publishers a proven track record of success. It’s pretty much a winning situation all around. So yeah, self-publishing counts.
Very true, Amy.
It all counts to me. I’ve read traditionally published books that have moved me. And I’ve read self-published books that have moved me. I don’t rate one less than the other. Story sharing definitely counts, too. In college, we were required to attend Chapel three times a week. The speakers who shared with us there told the best stories ever, and I don’t think most of their stories were ever “published,” yet they still live on inside of me.
Great example, Yvonne. Thanks.
They all count, but I think they’re directed at slightly different audiences. Also, it depends what kind of a head for business you have. I think trying to manage everything on my own in self-publishing would be rather difficult for me. On the other hand, I’m more afraid of a publishing company taking advantage of me, so chances are, I’ll self-publish.
Either way, you’ll probably need help. If you decide to self-publish, get a friend to help you or at least teach you the marketing and business side of things. If you’re going for the traditional route, hire an attorney to make sure you don’t get screwed. There’s no reason you should be unprepared for publishing if you get help.
I think the recent revolution in self-publishing is the best thing to ever happen for writer’s and authors. And yes, story sharing counts.
For me, epublishing is the way to go. (I like that term better than sel-publishing. The limes are blurring so much, and the traditional publishing houses are expecting so much from their authors, that it is all sel publishing
Exactly. Good stuff LJ.
Anytime our words are appreciated and in print, I consider that published. However, I realize many don’t recognize writers as “legit” unless they go through traditional publishing. Makes me wonder how many great stories we are missing.
I am becoming more and more open to the idea of self-publishing as not only a viable means to share my story but sometimes as a preferred means.
I don’t think either method should be ruled out. I think that traditional publishing adds a certain stamp of legitimacy. If someone’s bio reads X, who has had stories printed in The New Yorker, etc. or even on various respected blogs, it sounds better than self-published author X. And that is a fact of life.
Although I have read self-published material that was wonderfully done, I have also read plenty of self-published material that exhibited shoddy writing or editing (or both). I think it is probably wise to pursue both, with the traditionally published adding credence to the self-published.
I am just starting down the road of seriously looking at sharing my stories with the world. Up until now, my stories existed on my desktop, and I’ve only begun to think about publishing since starting the course. I think that both traditional and self-publishing have value, and my personal plan would be to pursue both. I’m honestly not even sure where to begin, though, with either avenue!
I think that traditional and self-publishing/story sharing both have their merits. I think that if writing is your chosen profession or you’ve been published, then you have a better chance of getting published through traditional publishers. If you haven’t been published yet or do not know much about the publishing field, then self-publishing/story sharing might be a way to learn what it is to be a writer.
Story sharing definitely counts, and writers can do both traditional publishing, and story sharing through blogs or self publishing. I loved ABC Open which I was recently involved in, and the 500 words sharing projects, stories are going online, into readings at festivals and onto radio.
I think all of them count, and all of them saying good things about the author. Most people will never finish a book, but I wonder of how many that do finish a book that will never share it.
On the flip side, I’ve seen a few writers who seem to believe a rough draft is all your writing needs. They publish their stories raw. To me, it is like eating a raw steak, uncooked, unprepared, and unseasoned.
You mentioned that a failed book may not be as consequential in the self-publishing world as opposed to the traditional publishing world. I disagree. Every book that you write that is under-represents your abilities as a writer can damage your reputation and ability as a writer. A writer can easily over-think and over-critique his or her work, yet nothing spreads by word-of-mouth faster than a quality product except one thing: a terrible product.
But, by this, in now way do I mean a writer should refrain from sharing their stories. In fact, I encourage the sharing with a different subset of readers first: beta readers. Writers need a few readers to read it before they release it to the masses. It is kind of like having a Quality Assurance team.
Great point James about the importance of beta readers or critique partners.
I think self-publishing does count. If done properly (stories revised, edited, and finding the right artwork, synopsis, and — if possible — blurbs from other writers) then it’s just as good as traditional publishing. I think that self-publishing has a bit of a black eye because not everyone takes the time to really give their story a good edit. But there are a lot of great self-published stories out there and I have quite a few friends who have decided to go in that route. Nowadays, that can even be considered a route to traditional publishing. Wool’s an example of a book that sold so well a lit agent picked him up and now he has a significant traditional book deal.
That said, I’m still in favor of traditional publishing for me. I’ve talked to enough traditionally published writes to know that’s the experience I want. But I haven’t completely ruled out self-publishing, of course. It’s always possible that I’ll change my mind in the future.
I think being traditionally published will accelerates early writing success. From there, I don’t know. In my opinion, being traditionally published is the best way to grow your readership as a new author.
My opinion on the matter is if you are going to spends XXX amount of hours, tears, sweat, blood working on a novel, why not submit it for Gold first. If, after umpteen-thousands attempts, you can’t get Gold, then go for second place.
But I think, either route you choose, quality is the biggest seller. That and strange fads.
I believe that the stigma with self-publishing is changing a little. Years ago when I noticed someone was doing a signing party I remarked. “Wow, she’s published, that’s great,” Then an English teacher quickly added, “It’s just self-published.” That was in 1995. Things have changed a lot since then.
I think both are valid within the context of how you define your goals as a writer. I think it’s naive to consider either as the only worthy course for an author. Both paths require diligence, sacrifice and hard work. The question seems to me which will take me where I want to go, at this time, in my writing career.
Though I am now headed down the road to self-publishing, in the back of my mind there is a nagging feeling insisting self-publishing steals my legitimacy. I don’t have to prove my worth to an agent or a publisher. A shortcut.
This is such a timely post for me and has removed a lot of these negative feelings from me, which were really stealing my happiness about something very exciting.
Hearing about how many famous writers have self-published has certainly been an eye-opener for me. I’ve always been interested in how Dickens published. He published his novels one chapter at a time, in serial format. That allowed him to build up a fan base of readers, who were always eager to know what would happen next. It makes for good story telling as well, because you have to write compellingly throughout, and avoid a saggy middle.
Both of them count. But self-publishing appeals to me more than traditional publishing. But at this point, I just want to share my work with others. I think it’s too early for me to think which path to choose.
I hardly even think of traditional publishing for myself. I’m unwilling to 1. jump through their hoops, 2. lose control of my story
I like this philosophy of publishing. And (no surprise, since I’m also a freelance editor), I totally agree with James Hall’s description of first-draft publishing as sending out the raw steak. There’s no shame in polishing, polishing, polishing, and in calling in a qualified team. Quite the contrary! The fun and satisfying thing about self-publishing is that it doesn’t have to be a big team, and it can be the one most suited to and sympathetic to your perspective. The writers of APE call it “artisanal publishing,” and they have a good point!
I’m working on my first novel and would be pretty insecure and would not be expecting it to be picked up by a traditional publisher. It seems to me that going the Kindle e-pub route is so much safer, quicker and less painless.
My intent with self-publishing was to find a way to share my book. In today’s market, traditional publishers usually won’t publish your book unless you have a history of previous success. It’s the old “You can’t publish without previous success, and you don’t have previous success because you aren’t published.”
The example above is one of the benefits about a movement that has only one downfall, formatting, and that’s it. No contract you have to have an attorney look through, no backlist you’re waiting for, no interminable wait for the slow turn of “the industry”. I always thought I would submit my story to one of the big six. I studied that school of thought for years. Then, as a favor to my readers, I started a series on self-publishing. It turns out my readers had done a favor for me.
I have self published and I agree it’s a small business that can be developed.
It all counts – it is all important. We live in an every changing environment, the key is getting the story out there.
Love that definition of self-publishing, well all forms of publishing: story sharing. Some of my happiest memories were the many nights I told stories to my 2 boys. Never thought that in fact all I was doing was story sharing.
I think we’ll see more of the “hybrid” author. One who traditionally publishes some material and story shares other material direct to the public.
I’m looking to self-publish my first book around March of 2014. I tell people all the time that self-publishing is the wave of the future for the publishing industry. The only thing is that there is an elusive draw to being “picked up” by a publishing house. It’s not real, though, and it is fleeting. I’d be willing to bet that some of the best writing probably doesn’t get signed on with HarperCollins, Penguin, or others.
Thus, it probably all comes down to who you want your audience to be. If you’re hoping to catch the attention of the mass media right out the gates, then big publishing is your ticket–but as we all know, that’s probably a dying solution (and near impossible for us newbies). The only other option is to self-publish. But I feel the “publishing with an asterisk” thing too. I know it doesn’t need to be seen that way, but it’s just engrained in my mind. Anyone else know what I mean?
I definitely know what you mean. But if it makes you feel better, the Impressionists felt the same way.
Self-publishing is the way to go. I would like to remain in control of my stories.
Traditional publishing does not always work. I know an author who did not sell many books through a traditional publisher. I feel that self-publishing is the way to go. The world around is changing fast and I wanna be there in that number!
Back in the last century when I was a working girl, I was a copy editor and editorial assistant at Harcourt Brace in New York. I worked in the School Department on Science, Math and Language Arts. And learned a lot about the cost of doing business.
In a nutshell, publishing is all about making money for the company. It isn’t about sharing your work, telling the truth or trying to produce excellent books.
It’s all about the money.
Lately I’ve talked with some very successful traditionally published writers who have pulled their manuscripts and turned to self publishing. Their publishers wanted to make changes purely for the sake of increasing sales. They didn’t agree.
So I’m all for retaining control over what I write. I’ll hang with Ben Franklin, Jane Austin and Nathaniel Hawthorne..
My opinion: Own what you write and keep control in your own hands. Publish it yourself.
That’s such a great perspective, Judith, and it jives with my feelings about publishing today as well. There are still places where a publisher can really help your career, especially for first time authors, but it’s important that writers see the cost associated with publishing as well as the benefits.
As an Indie publisher that has published well over sixty books for other writers between three different imprints, I have an unique perspective on what publishing is. To me, publishing is about taking risks.
When I sign a new author or story, I’m taking a risk on whether or not their book will sell. Because the author has made me the one to take that risk by signing with me, we share the rewards. Had that author decided to take the path alone, they would alone reap the benefits of their hard work.
So the short answer is, publishing is sharing your work, no matter the medium or whether you have help getting it “out there” or not.
This is so awesome. Thank you so much for sharing your perspective, Angie.
That makes a lot of sense, Angie. If I self-publish, them I’m taking the risk, but I probably won’t put as money into my book as an indie or traditional publisher would do.
I’ve heard that there are a lot more indie publishers these days. What makes a publisher “indie,” as opposed to “traditional?” Is it the size of the press, or the focus (say on a single type of book)?
Well, my children are doomed to a long life of me telling them stories (grin). So I guess I’m already self-publishing. Seeing a book I wrote in Barnes-Noble is a dream, but not needed. I’m intending to do online for short stories and build up to a book. I’m note really picky about where it’s published, but I would still like to profit somewhere in there as well. I do believe “published” means any kind of publishing – I’m typing this on a tablet, hooked online via wi-fi, so as much as I like “traditional” I can’t ignore the modern world.
So I started off with having one answer, and then after reading some comments here, especially Angie Mroczka’s, I had to come back and retype my answer.
Sharing is, in whatever way, the most important thing. I think that technology is always changing the definition of what success can be – What happened before the printing press, great story tellers were needed, and heck most people couldn’t read even if there were printed books. Then after the printing press more stories could be shared in a different manner and as societies evolved – so did our “reading communities”. Books made stories even more accessible.
Long story short – ten to twelve years ago, before Amazon really got e-books out to the masses – who would have thought that self-published electronic would even something that would be embraced by readers – Print, that’s how we do it. That’s what we know.
Who can say where the next way of sharing stories may reside. But imagine what we’ll ALL know tomorrow.
Sharing stories, print, self published, blogs, a really smart greeting card – Yeah all count to me. Definitely
Good thought process here, James. This reminded me of something Hugh Howey said recently. One of the major reasons publishers are struggling right now is because they thought it was all about BOOKS, when what was really important, their core business, was developing and distributing STORIES. It’s got to be about more than just seeing your name in print. It’s got to be about sharing your story with people and then watching to see if it affects their lives (and then sharing the next one).
I absolutely think self-publishing and story sharing counts. While it may not make as much money, you are submitting yourself to the critique of others. Furthermore, it makes you consider who you are writing for and how much someone’s opinion matters.
Having done both (in non-fiction) both are real and equal in my eyes, though different. Each gave my businesses something different, and I needed what both offered.
To me publishing means putting it out there. And yes there are a couple of modes of transportation, but if it’s done well, then self-publishing will get out there as well as traditional publishing.
I’m not going to lie, I think it would be great to self-publish and then have a traditional publisher come knocking on my door, but the important thing is that my writings are out there.
I liked this article and the one Elizabeth Craig wrote. I think it opened my eyes to self-publishing a little more, along with many of the comments posted here. I have generally seen self-publishing in a negative light for a variety of reasons. But a good story professionally edited and carefully marketed could be just as good as any published book as well as successful with more personal freedoms for the writer.
For me writing is painting with words. I’m a painter , I will always remember the first time I sold a painting. I was so proud that this couple wanted to look at something I created everyday , it was overwhelming. Then, several years later I exhibited a few of my paintings at a library. No price tags, I just wanted to share them, they were a part of me that couldn’t be sold. When I took down the paintings and went home and read the remarks in the book I was struck by the impact they had on me. No sales, no profits, but reading how people enjoyed them and what they saw and experienced was as memorable as my first sale.
I want to share my stories .How ever that happens is alright by me.
I know a few people who have self published and I see them as resourceful and confident . They took charge of their destiny. Good for them.
I won’t lie: this brought tears to my eyes. Giving up my B&N-shelves dream was one of the hardest things I ever did as a writer, and thought I’ve enjoyed being indie, I haven’t been able to help looking over my shoulder once in a while.
This particular lesson really moved me. Thank you.
To me, story sharing is what counts. Publishing is just a business that figured out how to make money off story sharing. People in business will always do that and business models will always evolve as technology evolves. Imagine what sharing / distributing stories will look like in 20 years? In 50 years? I think regardless of how the business evolves to continue to make money from story sharing and how the technology evolves on how to distribute the story, the answer to the question will remain the same: a story will be shared no matter the medium of sharing.
I should add – authors will have to continually evolve how to share their stories in new business models and technologies.
Vis a vis traditional vs. self-publishing. I’d like to share the history of my currently hybrid published, “The Consecration of Jacob Jordaens.” Seven years ago three of NY’s best agencies and 3 Publishers held a contest for novels that had been submitted to one of these entities and which they had some interest in. “The Consecration” was considered in this contest as were about 5000 other manuscripts. I was one of 10 winners chosen to go for a week to the Berkshires to be tutored/trained by these publishers and agents on how to tweak the book to make it more commercial. Pretty exciting, huh?
The preface to this was that for 3 years I had submitted the novel to every possible agent listed in the trades. A good six said they were very interested, that I was an incredible writer, etc. Two of them kept the ms. more than six months, only to say that they decided they weren’t interested.
So I had that frustration, before getting to the contest. Anyway, the week in Berkshires was great because I met the ten other writers most of whom have become friends. The sessions with publishers went like this: “What’s your main character’s first name?” “Jake.” “Nope. Can’t use that. Too many characters called Jake last year.” Etc. It was asinine.
Seven years later (seven years of depression, frustration, wanting to give up for me, but I guess too stubborn to do so) three of the ten, who were culled out of many under serious consideration have published. One published with a small press his sword and sorcery saga, one self-published her novel, and I hired a firm to help do a quality self-publishing job (book cover, trailer, editing, layout for print, some marketing, marketing training, etc.)
Next book, I’ll hire artists and editors myself and save some money.
Moral of this long saga: yes reaching a certain level of quality is probably necessary to be traditionally published, but even when you’re there, the game they’re playing scrambling for dollars, certainly doesn’t mean anything about the quality of your work.
I think, if traditional publishing is a goal (and I’ll admit it’s hard to shake those dreams of the NYT Bestseller’s List), follow Elizabeth Craig’s advice and try it for six months–then forget about it–don’t torture yourself for a decade like I did.
Michael
I chose self-publishing as the route for me to get my books out. I have tried to submit one or two to book companies, but found it took too much of my time and never really got off the ground for me. The first time I received a royalty check, although hardly enough to buy two gallons of milk, brought me such a rush of satisfaction.
I just self-published my first book through Createspace. I had a BIG team of editors, proofreaders and experienced other writers place their eyes on my book for accuracy in punctuation, spelling, wording and the flow of the book. It cost me nothing. I had networked and gotten to know other people through the Tribewriters course and they offered to help. It can be done. I since have been offered a contract through a Hybrid Publisher and turned it down because it cost me less to Self-publish than what they were going to charge to publish my book and I have the rights to my book. I now have several opportunities coming up soon to meet some traditional publishers in July at a conference. We will wait and see what may arise out of these meetings. The good thing is – we have options!
Great point, Brenda. You can definitely get so much help from your people if you network well (i.e. by helping a lot of people) and you ask boldly.
The writing world is complex.
For me, personally, anything that gets one’s work to the public counts as publishing.
That includes self-publishing – and even so-called vanity presses.
Also, submitting work to online archives – such as, for example, the non-fiction article publishing site http://www.ezinearticles.com
Whether a given outlet is the best for a given piece of work, or will help you reach your personal objectives, is, of course, another matter.
All publishing outlets are indeed ‘publishing’ – but some may meet your work and needs better than others at a given time.
So deciding what to publish, where, when and why all need considering to help find the right ‘fit’ of publishing for your specific current needs.
YES!
As I go through this a second time, I from experience now, understand how really even if you are published by a traditional publisher, how well the book is shared is dependent on the efforts you make.
Absolutely, Michael.
It’s in point of fact a great and helpful piece of information. I’m
glad that you just shared this helpful information with us.
Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.