Children's and FFD are pretty active, and any quietness is there is because people are slogging away writing, trying to get things done in time for the school holidays!

Then we all got computers and though - this looks easy I'll write a book! It's taken a few years for the reality to sink in, that getting published is very difficult and pays very poorly. These two facts have probable shattered lots of dreams and thus folk have given up writing as a hobby.

I think there's some truth in this. I started out as a children's writer in the early 1980s. At that time, there was no internet and very little communication between writers. No one knew what anyone else earned, basically. Which allowed publishers and agents to keep alive the dream all writers had - that they would get lots of work published and gradually build up to making a very nice living. The only writers you had any idea about were the big-selling ones, news of which helped keep the faith-dream alive of course.

I'm in the Scattered Authors Society and still remember the night Mary Hoffman read out the results of the survey she'd done into what children's authors got paid. This would have been about 2003. Doom and gloom all round, since it was the first time most of us realised that most children's authors make very little money. In the ten years since, much more information about the reality of publishing has appeared, along with deals getting thinner and tighter too. I would say to the point any new writer has to seriously ask themselves if they really want a traditional publishing contract these days.

But if the alternatives to trad publishing are self-pub or shove it in a drawer....?

<Added>

I mean, surely it's rare for any self-published novel to make more money for the author than even a stingy publishing deal? I know it has happened, but it's rare as hen's teeth, surely?

I mean, surely it's rare for any self-published novel to make more money for the author than even a stingy publishing deal? I know it has happened, but it's rare as hen's teeth, surely?

I think (as with everything) that depends . . . A couple of years back I did a self-publishing course that Dean Wesley Smith took. He'd given up pretty much with trad publishing and didn't believe self-publishing would work. But then someone showed him how the figures could work and he saw the light. Okay, Dean has a big back list he can put up, plus he's prolific and can supplement it with new work.

I don't have such a big back list (and haven't got any of my old novels up yet, only short stories), and I don't expect to know how the money will work for some time, i.e. I have to get more stuff up first, then give it time. But I do think self-publishing has a lot of advantages over that 'stingy publishing deal'. You can write what you like; you can choose your own cover art; you can write in-betweener content (e.g. novellas, short stories) that trad publishing isn't interested in; you keep all the rights; your stuff is there forever; you can gradually build an audience instead of relying on the poorly-promoted scatter-gun approach that a lot of trad publishing does.

Of course there are caveats. You have to be either writing quality stuff or commercial work you know there's an audience for. For various reasons, I know my stuff is quality (e.g. I sell stories to top SF/Fantasy magazines which I've written purely from inspiration, not chasing a market) and therefore it's reasonable to believe that if I make sure it's presented well, and I keep providing more content, it will eventually find a good audience. What I wouldn't want to do is poor my heart into a novel, get an advance of say a grand with probably no royalties to follow, sign away most of the rights, all to see it appear for just a few short months in a few shops, then disappear without a trace, taking with it the next two books in the series that the publisher wanted to see before considering the first one.

A pal of mine spent years writing a novel, then after lots of slog and heartache, got a trad publisher on board. He had to do lots of self promotion and spent many an afternoon sitting in bookshops 'signing copies' of his novel. Suffice to say he didn't sell many.

And for all his effort and work he got an advance of £500. He'd have been better off doing overtime at work!

advance of say a grand

he got an advance of £500

Any more advances? Okay, how about two hundred? No? A hundred then?
Oh, okay, give us a tenner.

Alan, how about this from the SFWA:

Dear SFWA Member: SFWA has determined that works published by Random House’s electronic imprint Hydra can not be use as credentials for SFWA membership, and that Hydra is not an approved market. Hydra fails to pay authors an advance against royalties, as SFWA requires, and has contract terms that are onerous and unconscionable. Hydra contracts also require authors to pay – through deductions from royalties due the authors – for the normal costs of doing business that should be borne by the publisher. Hydra contracts are also for the life-of-copyright and include both primary and subsidiary rights. Such provisions are unacceptable. At this time, Random House’s other imprints continue to be qualified markets.

Terry, I had a look at the FAQ accompanying Hydra's submission page.

This is part of what it says:

What happens if my work is accepted for publication?
If, after reviewing the full manuscript of your work, we are interested in publishing it, we will contact you to negotiate a mutually acceptable publishing contract.

Will I retain copyright in my work if it is published by Random House?
Yes. You will retain copyright in the work, subject to the grant of publishing rights to Random House.

I'm not commenting as I have no experience of submitting, but if SFWA is correct, why would anyone go with Hydra.

<Added>

There's more on Hydra's Home page:

Quote:
Under the profit share model, there is no advance offered. Hydra, Alibi, Loveswept, or Flirt and the author will split profits 50-50 from the first copy sold.

why would anyone go with Hydra.

Presumably because they're not being offered a contract by anyone else. Or because they don't know to get the contract checked.

But it's not always because people are foolish and deluded.

I have two friends - excellent, professional-level writers both - whose had contracts with known UK publishers, and the Society of Authors was extremely rude about those contracts.

One was also told by their agent who was busy (successfully) selling a different book of theirs, "I think this is a terrible contract and I advise you to sign it" - because it was that or a good book not seeing the light of day. The other friend signed a contract for a short fic collection and it was that or nothing, because short fic is so incredibly difficult to get published, and this is in many ways a very good and energetic publisher.

So both those friends knew the contracts were bad. Neither of those publishers are rip-off merchants: their side of it is that theirs was a model which means good books could be published, which wouldn't be otherwise.

As a writer you might decide that was worth it - but, equally, I do agree with the SWFA's position that where possible we should hold the line against them become standard and therefore, tacitly, acceptable. As with so many things from when you do things for free, to what you do when a good friends asks you to endorse something you don't think is very good, we all have to take a position on the spectrum of compromises.

spent years writing a novel, then after lots of slog and heartache, got a trad publisher on board. He had to do lots of self promotion and spent many an afternoon sitting in bookshops 'signing copies' of his novel. Suffice to say he didn't sell many.

One of the elephants in the room when we all discuss this kind of thing is... maybe all the publishers (and by extension agents) who turn a book down are sometimes right. Maybe there really isn't any money to be made from it.

In which case, is it the best decision to go on hammering away till you end up with a publisher who doesn't know what they're doing? If 59 agents and 14 publishers turn a novel down, say, are the 60th and 15th really right in seeing potential where others don't?

<Added>

"Under the profit share model, there is no advance offered. Hydra, Alibi, Loveswept, or Flirt and the author will split profits 50-50 from the first copy sold."

Hm. "Profit" is a hugely ambiguous term in this context. If it had said "net receipts" as any proper publishing contract should, that would be one thing: it's how even in proper publishing revenue from things like e-books, where there isn't a "cover price" as a basis, is dealt with.

But since the publisher is in control of what counts as a "profit" - as they are controlling production and all the other costs - I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

And even if they do actually mean net receipts, I wouldn't touch a publisher with a bargepole who didn't know the difference.

One of the elephants in the room when we all discuss this kind of thing is... maybe all the publishers (and by extension agents) who turn a book down are sometimes right. Maybe there really isn't any money to be made from it.

I have often thought this. They are often seen as the bad guys, but they are just doing a job and publishing is a business.

One of the elephants in the room when we all discuss this kind of thing is... maybe all the publishers (and by extension agents) who turn a book down are sometimes right. Maybe there really isn't any money to be made from it.

Good point, but publishers and agents are almost always deciding if a book can make money in the short term. They don't have the margins these days to aim long term. But self-publishing can.

For example, I sent a proposal for my book, 'Subbuteo for the Soul' to quite a few publishers. There was a fair bit of interest with some - especially from editors who remembered their own Subbuteo days. However, no one wanted to take it on as was. This was a few years back. I then re-wrote it more as a memoir than a book of stories related to the game. I don't know, it might be more attractive to publishers now. However, I'm almost certainly going to do it myself (after probably re-writing it again!). I can, for example, release it in e-book sections. I can build up interest around various Subbuteo sites world-wide, plus I have lots of contacts who played or still play the game; promote it to other media too. Time's on my side, too, doing it this way. It can even be inter-active, e.g. I could write sections based on what people want to see more of.

Okay, a fair bit of that doesn't apply to novels; but some of it does, I think.

In which case, is it the best decision to go on hammering away till you end up with a publisher who doesn't know what they're doing? If 59 agents and 14 publishers turn a novel down, say, are the 60th and 15th really right in seeing potential where others don't?

I agree, but we are all sold the dream of books who were turned away by countless publishers - only to sell in their squillions at some point.

I think I'm right in saying that JK Rowling was rejected by someone (as were the Beatles!). That unfortunately give the hoplessly deluded crowd, hope.

They don't have the margins these days to aim long term. But self-publishing can.

No, absolutely - the industry's definition of "saleable" is by no means the only possible and defensible definition.

But I do think if a lot of people with every interest and a good deal of experience/skill in publishing don't think that a book will find enough readers to make money, the sensible would-be author should have a long, hard look at why not, and ask very stringently whether it will, actually, be possible to do the same thing themselves and somehow avoid the problems which make it an uneconomic proposition for a publisher.

It helps if you don't cost your time, of course - or at least have less overhead - and a longer view - and so on. But you do also have to say, "How will I find the readers that a publisher thinks they can't find? Do they really exist?"

we are all sold the dream of books who were turned away by countless publishers - only to sell in their squillions at some point.

When those stories are true, which they frequently aren't - or at least not nearly that simple. It does happen, of ocurse, and the squillions bit will happen more now (which is only to say, more than almost never), because the internet multiplies word-of-mouth existentially. Sometimes. But (see the link I posted to the N Y Times piece about Wool) it really is chance.

Although we need to have a dream of writing a great book to sustain us through writing the damn thing, it's daft to pin your economic hopes on it happening. It's not difficult to find out the realities of the book trade - I'm just always surprised how far people will go with time and effort in writing before they get round to it.

<Added>

"I'm just always surprised how far people will go with time and effort in writing before they get round to it."

I don't mean in writing for the joy of it - millions of people do that without any or much engagement with the economics of getting/being published.

I mean the people who are explicitly writing in order to make money - but take the myths as gospel, without digging further, and then are shocked and surprised when they run smash into the reality.


<Added>

I suppose what I'm really saying is that no one is sold a dream, unless they're willing to buy it ... and that willingness is their own responsibility.

I don't mean in writing for the joy of it - millions of people do that without any or much engagement with the economics of getting/being published.

I'm glad you said that, Emma! I have sold the odd story or article over the years and of course feel a tremendous sense of achievement when it happens. But I've never really written to be published. I always use a pen-name when I am published as I hate to see my name in print (it happened by mistake once; I was sooo embarrassed) and I would rather die than sign books. Luckily I'm just a run-of-the-mill writer so never likely to be a best-selling author with all the publicity that entails!

Once in a blue moon I might submit something, but mostly I get an idea in my head and go with it. At the moment I'm posting a long story on the internet which several people are enjoying reading (not a writers' site) but I know it's too rambling etc to even attempt an agent/publication.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a lazy writer as it takes me forever to compose even a paragraph (I edit as I go along! ). Writing is just something I've wanted to do since I was five but as for being published...*shrugs*