The Self-Publishing Debate - Opinions?
I'm the editor of Trashionista, a chick-lit 'blogazine'. Recently I posted about about self-publishing, as a BBC programme here in the UK talked about the benefits (and disadvantages) of sites such as Blurb and Lulu. I had some mixed comments - some favour the traditional route to publication (myself included), whereas others wouldn't mind self-publishing.
I'm looking to write a follow-up post, with opinions of others - as kind of a debate. I'm wondering if any of you could offer your opinions on this. Would you self-publish, or stick to the traditional route to getting your book published? Is anyone here a self-published author and if so, what made you decide to self-publish?
I would link to your sites on the post along with your comments. Would anyone be up for sharing their opinions? :D
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Susan G. Bell on -
I recently published my first novel When the Getting Was Good http://www.amazon.com/When-Getting-Good-Susan-Bell/dp/1449081223/re.... My novel is about a woman trader on Wall Street in the 1980s, who is implicated in a trading scandal and must fight to clear her name and save her job.
I initially approached 15 or 20 literary agents and received positive feedback but no takers. Then I heard from a writer I'd met in a workshop at Sarah Lawrence College (where I got an MFA in writing). He'd tired of waiting for his agent to find a publisher for his memoir and decided to self-publish. He successfully marketed the book and is about to self-publish a sequel. Another friend, who has written a beautiful novel, was picked up by a prominent agent. But her agent has been unable to place the book. The responses are the same: "Your book is beautiful, but it's first fiction, and with the current state of publishing, we need to be sure" etc. etc. Landing an agent doesn't guarantee publication.
I wanted to get on with it and decided to self-publish. There are those who pause when I tell them I self-published, but that has definitely been a minority response. I did hire a book cover designer to make sure my book had a professional look. Now I'm spending time marketing my novel instead of waiting for others to determine its fate. With social media and sites like SheWrites, the paradigm for publishing is changing dramatically. Writer friends with traditional publishers complain about the lack of marketing support. An author has to be an active marketer no matter which publishing route she takes.
Please feel free to contact me if you'd like further information. email: susangbell@me.com
My website: www.whenthegettingwasgood.com
-
Permalink Reply by Dasaya Cates on -
Susan, I have to agree. I congratulate you for self-publishing instead of waiting for someone to validate you--that seems to be the foremost response I see from people in forums with regard to their reservations about self-pubbing. They feel like, "If I can't get an agent and a contract, my writing must need work so I'll keep refining my output." Not necessarily the case. And you're so right: an agent is no guarantee to traditional publishing and that contract can be pulled. I know personally of 1 best-selling author who had her teen series pulled for lack of sales. I know of a different, best-selling author who had her books returned from Barnes & Noble because "no one was buying them." So, marketing is key, and you're on your own either route.
I also say congratulations because, as a self-publisher, I'm glad that more quality writers are getting into the game. For too long self-publishing had a black mark because people didn't get professional editors, designers--cover and interior--and it became a market for junk, but I think (and I'm glad) this is changing. There are pros and cons to each route you go, but even if I were offered a contract now, I think I'd struggle with the decision. I love creative control and not compromising on my vision. I like the margin, too.
So many things to think about and it really depends on each individual author. Best to you with your book! I work in the financial services industry and this subject is very close to my job. ;) I'm definitely checking it out!
-
Permalink Reply by Susan G. Bell on
-
Dee,
I will be very interested to hear how you compare conditions in the financial services industry today with those of 1985, the year in which my novel is set. Thanks for your interest!
Susan
-
Permalink Reply by Michael N. Marcus on -
Hi Susan...
I don't think I've read any fiction since I finished college over 40 years ago, and I've read just one "chick-lit" book in my entitre life. However, after seeing your posting here, and reading about the book on your website, I ordered the book from Amazon. I'm really looking forward to reading it, and perhaps reviewing it.
For any doubters in the audience, this incident may prove the validity of self-publishing, and the power of social media.
Michael N. Marcus
-- www.BookMakingBlog.blogspot.com
-- www.Self-Pub.info
-- Create Better Books, with the Silver Sands Publishing Series: www.silversandsbooks.com/booksaboutpublishing.html
-- "Stories I'd Tell My Children (but maybe not until they're adults)," http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981661750
-
Permalink Reply by Dasaya Cates on
-
Michael - exactly! I just got it on Kindle too. I always enjoy reading your comments here.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan G. Bell on
-
Thank you so much, Michael. You made my day.
I hope you will enjoy When the Getting Was Good. I don't think my novel is chick lit, though I'm not completely sure what that term means; I've had positive responses from men too, and I hope that you will feel the same.
I've been reading your responses to other people's posts; your comments are savvy and supportive. Thanks for taking the time and interest.
Susan G. Bell
-
Permalink Reply by Michael N. Marcus on
-
To Susan:
From a definition in my new "Get the Most out of a Self-Publishing Company" (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981661777, due about 11/1):
"Chick Lit: Not to be confused with Chiclets candy-coated gum, it’s chick literature—the print equivalent of chick flicks. The books are often romantic and written for women in their 20s and 30s. There are sub-genres for teen, matron, Latina, Christian and Asian chicks."
The outward signs of frivolous chick lit are male hunks ravishing women in the bodice-rippers published by Harlequin.
The covers of more serious chick lit books frequenly use femme colors like pink and lavender that are seldom used on "guy books." (Pls don't think I'm a sexist about colors. I'm man enough to wear a pink shirt -- but I'm not ready for lavender.)
I recently read and enjoyed the funny-but-not-frivolous "Confessions of an Unfaithful Widow" by Barbara Bach. There were parts of it I didn't "get" or identify with -- like evaluations of mens' butts and a discussion of bra inventory -- but there was plenty in the book to appeal to those of us in the male monority. I expect that your book will be the same, and I plan to start reading tonight.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan G. Bell on
-
To Michael:
Thanks for the definition. While I hope women younger than I am will enjoy reading When the Getting Was Good, it's not chick lit ... though there is a rectangle of pink on the cover.
A friend, who is director of an angel investment network for women entrepreneurs, likes Kate Munro--my novel's heroine--specifically because she is strong, balanced, and "not neurotic, a nymphomaniac, or a bitch." Not that there's anything wrong with that type of protagonist, but I wanted to tell the story of how a strong woman responds to a dilemma in her work place.
Thanks for reading my book!
-
Permalink Reply by Michael N. Marcus on
-
Hi Susan.
I finally started reading your book. I recommend it highly, but read who I recommend it for in a long-winded review, at http://bookmakingblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/this-is-long-winded-reco...
-
Permalink Reply by Linda A Lavid on
-
Long winded. Oh yeah. And off topic, meandering, unprofessional. I learned little about the book but now know you are a feminist who calls women chicks.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael N. Marcus on
-
Oh, come on, Linda. Lighten up.
I seldom call women "chicks," and certainly not all women.
My 88-year old mother is not a chick now, but was one 70 years ago. My father may have considered her a "babe" or a "honey" or a "doll" or some other term that was in fashion prior to World War II.
"Chick" is a lighthearted and complimentary term for an attractive young woman, and far nicer than other terms that have been applied to women (and to men).
In the 1960s and 70s, I dated several young women who described themselves as "hippie chicks." I married one. One whom I did not marry is now a grandmother and calls herself an "old hippie chick." I know a female computer programmer who calls herself a "geek chick."
I didn't invent the term "chick lit," and the term is certainly used by women who dont hate the term.
www.chicklitbooks.com is a woman-operated website and says "chick lit is a genre comprised of books that are mainly written by women for women.
"See Jane Write: a Girl's Guide to Writing Chick Lit" was written by two women.
"Will Write for Shoes: How to write a Chick Lit Novel" was written by a woman.
"Chick lit" is a convenient alternative to "bodice-ripping romance novel written for women, with a large-breasted woman and a Fabio lookalike on the cover and a castle in the background."
Susan Bell's book has none of that. By the usual standards, it is certainly NOT chick lit.
However, the presence of the sentence "Jim still had the bearing of the college athlete he'd once been. His expensive cotton shirt, boldly striped in sapphire blue, fit snugly, accentuating what good shape he was in." made it seem like the book was aimed at other women (even unconsciously), so I felt justified in using the chick lit label.
The description of Jim made me a bit uncomfortable. It made me feel that I was in the wrong place -- like when I unknowingly went into a biker bar to use a pay phone. The bar may have had excellent drinks and food, but it was just not for me. Similarly, an excellent book may not appeal to all readers.
"86 _Broads_" is an organization for women, founded by women who worked at 86 Broad Street in Manhattan, and I'm sure the members are aware of the other meaning of "broad" and used the term for irony and humor.
A female motorcycle club is named "Dykes on Bikes," and the name does not offend its members.
Just as the "n-word" is used by some black people, and "fag" is used bysome gay people, I know women who use the "cu-word" to describe themselves. (but I won't).
My message up above is certainly on-topic, and part of a dialog with Susan Bell that started here in October.
If you meant that my blog posting was off-topic, that's silly. The post clearly dealt with the topic it established in its title.
Yes, my blog posting is meandering. So what? The meandering was a humorous literary device I chose to use to make the point that I had deficiencies that made me unsuitable to apprecuiate a particular well-regarded book -- which I wanted to recommend to others.
If you "learned little" about the book in my review, I have no apology. I told what the book is about and that it was well written. I provided a link to the book's page on Amazon that has more details and ten five-star reviews. I also provided a link to a YouTube interview with the author. That's more info than many reviews provide.
And as for "unprofessional" -- I never thought blogging was a profession. For me, it's recreation.
Are you still upset with me because I refused to adopt your favored "publishing writer" label last spring?
-
-
Hey, it's my two cents. Stick to your convictions and I'll stick to mine. Upset with our discussion of last spring? Unfortunately no. The reaction to your review stands alone. Too much about you, too little about the book. But like you said, it's your world (blog) and I'm just living in it (reading it). BTW, if you indeed highly recommend the book, put a review on Amazon where it counts.
-
Latest Activity
Marcy S Hatch posted a status
Petrea Burchard commented on the group 'Small Publishers and Independent Authors'Top Content
Badge
© 2013 Created by Kamy Wicoff.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
