Interesting, if not scary, blogpost from Mike Stackpole about how publishers are shrinking the windows for their books. He's worth paying attention to, since for years he's been accurately predicting publishing trends, particularly in self-publishing. He's also a traditionally well-published author, and knows how that side works, too.

I've recommended it before, but his podcast, Dragonpage, is also worth checking out it you're interested in the new world of e- and self-publishing.

Terry


http://www.michaelastackpole.com/?p=2702

I'm sorry - but "house-slaves"?

Seriously? What an absolutely vile term to use.

He may have any number of good points but I couldn't get past that phrase in the header.

I suspect it's designed to shock us through those mental buffers which prevent uncomfortable truths getting in. I know I have to do that with myself! Otherwise, I just settle into the nice cosy belief that publishers and agents exist solely to nurture my writing. Which isn't to say that individual editors and agents aren't really decent people; but I think what Stackpole and others are resisting at the moment are some of the very questionable practices that agents and publishers feel they have to adopt in order to protect their businesses. And, really, some of the contracts currently being offered by publishers, and particularly agents, could be said to have the whiff of slavery about them.

Terry

Oh I appreciate his point - I just find that particular term SO offensive and loaded.

I don't mean it's offensive to trade publishers - goodness knows they've broad enough shoulders to take a bit of criticism. But it's degrading and belittling to the people who actually suffered the slave trade.

It's like when people talk about "breastfeeding Nazis" and I want to shout do you KNOW what the Nazis did? Do you have ANY understanding of history and the reality of the suffering they caused? And can you not see that this is a completely fatuous, offensive comparison which does nothing to further your argument and only whittles away at the horrific reality of what actually went on?

I just think that using such hatefully loaded words cheapens the argument, and is offensive to the weight of history surrounding the word itself. It put me right off reading his article which might otherwise have been interesting.

Fair point.

Terry, this is extremely interesting, and backs up what I've been reading elsewhere (wish I could find it all again now).

I think traditional publishing has, for years now, traded on the myth that they take all the nasty little worries off the authors’ shoulders so that all they need to think about is writing the next novel. The more I look in to this world the more I realise that traditional publishers are providing less and less, in terms of editorial work, financial support, and marketing, and are driving authors harder by the day. Every writer I know who has a contract with a publisher finds out – often before the proverbial ink has dried – that they now have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing exactly what they expected their publisher to do for them. And, right down at the end of the line, they get diddly squat in royalties after the publisher has creamed off their share.

I think we’re still a very long way from seeing the end of physical books – if ever – but I do see a groundswell of writers waking up and taking back control of their own work.

Dee

Dee, I’ve just come back from Oregon where I attended the Think Like a Publisher course, taken by Dean Wesley Smith and Scott Carter. Fantastic workshop; very inspiring, full of cutting edge stuff. It’s clear to me that right now, quite a few writers are very capable of doing all that’s required to get their books out there by themselves; or, if not, know where to get specialist help. Better still, of course, they can choose the freelance help they need, instead of having it put upon them by the publishing house (not that publishers don’t have some excellent designers, etc, working for them; it’s just that you might not personally like what they want your book to look like). Of course there are benefits to having a traditional publisher, but increasingly those are looking somewhat thin against the cost, e.g. smaller advances, little to no exposure, limited shelf life, etc. Whereas a self-published book can take its time growing (by word of mouth), is out there for as long as you want, and is exactly the way the you want it to be (rightly or wrongly!).

If you haven’t bumped into it yet, I highly recommend Dean’s blog with its various series on self-publishing, and the myths of traditional publishing. Also excellent is Kris Rusch’s blog.

One of the waking-up moments for me on the workshop was just what you mention: taking back control. For example, I have several novels in the vault that my traditional publishing editors said they loved but could not get through their marketing committees. Before, I assumed these would never see the light of day; now, I can put them out there myself.

Terry

Terry, I heard about Dean Wesley Smith from one of your previous posts and now I have his blog pages about publishing on my kindle. And they’ve been very helpful.

I've spent the last couple of years convinced that I would never see my work published because I was locked into the straightjacket of thinking that the traditional route was the only way and, despite lots of positive feedback from them, no publisher would take it on. For years I bemoaned the fact that publishers and agents created a barrier between writers and readers. Eventually I abandoned the whole idea and took up knitting.

The breakthrough came when I was sent a link to a small indie publisher in the US. They wanted to publish The Winter House, initially as an ebook and later in print if it sold well enough, but I couldn’t accept some of the wording in their contract so the deal fell through. In the process, I realised that they were intending to publish on kindle, that there was no reason why I shouldn’t do that myself, and there were no upfront costs involved. So now it’s available on Amazon and I get 70% of the selling price. Authors with traditional contracts can only dream of such a percentage.

In addition, thanks to info from Dean Wesley Smith, I can upload it to Smashwords from where it will be distributed to several major ebook stores in the US. As you say, we can take back control of our work. We might not have the promises of success, but we do have the reality.

Dee

Some uncheerful but very interesting content here. Perhaps though we should not allow gloom and doom full rein. We are talking about a business situation here and no business situation is static. The route he describes the publishers as following may appear to be the road to perdition for the authors but it must also be a suicidal blind alley for the publishers themselves. The market will force publishers with a modicum of sense to find a different way forward rather than disappear up their own exhausts. This new way forward must eventually accommodate the authors who are, after all, their source of product without which they don't exist.

The need for change has come to them faster than they are capable of recognising. It will take them time to work out the alternatives but they will eventually. What those will be is open to question but I don't see the publishers vanishing and the only way they will survive is in some sort of satisfactory collaboration with writers.

Or so we must hope...

Chris

Chris,

I don't think it's doom and gloom for authors at all. One way or another, more control is going to come our way. And, yes, publishers will find their new feet eventually. A couple of comments Dean made were interesting: that publishers have already for some time been taking books from self-published authors (makes sense: they're ready or near enough to go and have been tested in the open market); and that the new self-publishing world is great for 'between the cracks' writers - those whose work is not easily brandable or genre-ified. Which gave me a lot of heart, since my YA novels tend to be rather cracked.

Terry