There is an affliction sweeping the nation that until recently has mainly only been whispered about in private quarters, but which agent Sarah LaPolla and author Chuck Wendig touched on this week:
Some (some!) vocal self-published authors have a rather substantial chip on their shoulders.
Before we start get into name calling, let me state the following:
I love self-publishing! I think it’s fantastic. I wouldn’t by any means rule out partaking in this wondrous process someday and have been pro-self-publishing since the beginning of time, or at least since the mid-2000s. I think it’s awesome that authors can find their readers without needing a traditional publisher.
And I don’t blame people for being frustrated with the traditional publishing process. Yes, some people in traditional publishing are jerks and treat people accordingly. Yes, traditional publishing may well have overlooked your book. Yes, the query process is used as a torture device in some countries.
It’s frustrating. But frustration is to publishing what carbon dioxide is to breathing: a poisonous but inevitable byproduct. (What many self-published authors don’t yet realize is that this is true of self-publishing too.)
Also, when I say some self-published authors have a chip on their shoulder, this isn’t about me complaining. These chips implanted in those shoulders certainly make for entertaining if slightly horrifying flame wars. People are welcome to say whatever they want, which is why the Internet exists in the first place.
I just don’t think the chippy authors are doing themselves any favors. Here’s why:
Your attitude could alienate people you might want to work with in the future
Publishing, whether self- or traditional, is a means to an end. It’s about getting your words to readers.
And guess what: love them or hate them, traditional publishers happen to be pretty awesome at getting books to readers, especially when they’re very motivated. You may want to use one of them someday.
Now, the idea of a publishing industry blacklist is approximately 110% myth. You’re not going to end your publishing career by shooting your mouth off. But all things being equal, people don’t want to work with a jerk.
Rejection isn’t personal. There’s nothing to exact revenge over.
You’re turning off potential readers
Most readers, by and large, don’t care a whit who publishes you. They haven’t heard of 90% of the imprints out there anyway. They’re not going to read you because you wear your self-publishing badge with excessive pride. They just want to know if your book is good.
Most readers would also prefer that the authors they read are good humans too. So that helps.
Your attitude reinforces the idea that self-publishing equates authors who were rejected everywhere else
Chuck Wendig puts this one better than I could:
Every time you yell about traditional publishing it just looks like a dumptruck full of sour grapes. Which leads us all to what is likely thecorrect conclusion: you self-publish because you were rejected and your peen is in a twist about it, not because you have a great story you want people to read, not because you want the control that self-publishing affords you.
If you are self-publishing out of frustration with traditional publication you’re doing it for the wrong reasons
You should be self-publishing because it is the best career move for you, not because you grew impatient with traditional publication or arrived at self-publishing with a desire to stick it to publishers.
Are you sure you want to self-publish? Check out this checklist.
By and large self-published authors are awesome, entrepreneurial, creative individuals. Some loud ones are not. It’s temping to join the loud crowd, but better in the long run to let your work speak for you rather than your frustrations.
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Art: The Torment of St. Anthony – Michelangelo
Joanne Huspek says
I have nothing to add. You've said it all.
Fiona says
Publishing IS frustrating. Regardless, I don't think it is ever fruitful to be negative (although we all have our moments). Airing grievances in a permanent fashion is never wise.
Michaela Grey says
Well said, Nathan. I decided to self-pub my first book not because I wanted to stick it to anyone, but because I still believed in the story after trying the traditional route for several years and finding the doors closed to me.
I haven't regretted it. But when my next book is finished, I will still seek an agent first and hope for a traditional publishing house to back me.
In the meantime, I'll do my best to be a decent person, not confrontational or "chippy", because if there's one thing I know for sure, it's how much I DON'T know still.
Keep up the good work, Nathan – I really enjoy your blog. :o)
Richard Gibson says
Thank you. Some of your points, specifically 1, 2, 3, and 4, are right on.
Carmen Webster Buxton says
So young and yet so wise!
fOIS In The City says
I can't believe I found you before the mad rush of comments. Great post as always. This is something many new and inexperienced writers need to learn. Also, there is always that six degree separation … whether to Kevin Bacon or main stream publishing.
Did people think Amanda Hocking would turn down $4Mil in favor of "being her own person?"
Thanks Nathan, you and Rachelle Gardner are giving so many the facts they need to have to succeed, no matter what path they choose.
L.A. Jones says
The thing about writing is everyone assumes its a great way to make money. Whether its traditional or self published in the end some people just want to make money. Problem is though whenever u choose a career u have to consider the pros and cons. The pros are great which include being a famous author. Cons however are pretty steep such as competition and frustration. It does frustrate me when some authors get recognition while I do not but I realize it's part of the writing path. Writing is not suppose to be easy. Nothing in life is easy so people need to understand that frustration is just further motivation to do better with ur life. One of the reasons I admire JK Rowling is the fact that in spite of everything she didnt give up. If she didn't then neither should I. So yeah writers have chips on their shoulders but the great ones know how to use it to their advantage.
Jen Bresnick says
Spot on.
I'm not self-published because I'm bitter about being rejected too many times (although, uh, that doesn't mean I haven't been rejected a lot). I'm self-published because I love the control over the process, the immediacy, and the genuine fun I've had connecting with other authors and my readers on my own terms.
I've found that the majority of self-pubbers are actually very supportive of each other and the process. Even some agents I've talked to are saying that the stigma is going away, as long as you do stay positive about it and don't succumb to being overly defensive.
Bernie Brown says
There's no room for a chip on one's shoulder in any aspect of writing. The only truth I've discovered is just keep writing and trying, writing and trying, no matter what.
historywriter says
Good stuff. I sometimes cringe when I read rants by self-pubbed authors. There are many elements to publishing today and to be successful, support can come from the traditional side, so good manners are important.
I chose to self publish my novel because, yes, it didn't get the interest of agents, but also I felt that it was a good route to go for this particular book. I wanted to find out what the fuss was all about. And I think I was right. It's found a place in book clubs, libraries and stores.
I'm still pitching my other novels and hope some day they will be picked.
Stacey says
Let me preface by saying that I'm a book blogger who gets daily requests for reviews from SP authors.
In my experience, most SP books I see aren't ready. I mean, either they have major editing or plot issues. I've seen tons with an interesting concept and thought, "If the author had spent their money on editing/writing courses versus SP, they might've gotten traditionally published."
Anyone who is considering SP should be required to take part in a critique group before they publish. Get others opinion before you jump in. Or, even better, take a writing course.
Another point I'd like to make is do your research. It sound amazing to have the control you get with SP, but you're also taking on all the marketing yourself. I don't think debut authors understand the kind of work it takes to get your book out there.
Matthew MacNish says
Word.
February Grace says
Everyone has to choose their own path and mind what they say…sometimes I don't think writers think about what they say enough, period, regardless whether they are traditionally published, self published, or unpublished.
Happy Tuesday!
bru
Jenn Cooksey says
"It's frustrating. But frustration is to publishing what carbon dioxide is to breathing: a poisonous but inevitable byproduct. (What many self-published authors don't yet realize is that this is true of self-publishing too.)"
Oh so very, very true! There is a HUGE amount of work to be done when you self-publish and if you don't have the wherewithal to pay someone to do that work for you, the determination to figure it out for yourself, and/or an unbeatable spirit, chances are excellent your book is going to languish away on a shelf in your home collecting dust bunnies that'll inevitably grow so large they'll elect government officials.
And I agree 100% about how shooting your mouth off will alienate people. Even sifting through ranting blogs trying to gain *useful* information on how to self-pub had me feeling like I needed a shower; the vitriol spewing forth was THAT pervading.
Great article once again, Nathon. Thank you for all you do for those in the writing game. You, sir, rock hard.
K.L. Brady says
POW!! #thatisall
Josin L. McQuein says
Sadly, it's a process of faulty logic. Like those logic flows that say: I live in a house; it's blue, therefore, all houses are blue.
*Jim Bob is a jerk.
*Jim Bob self-publishes.
*Therefore, self-publishers are jerks.
The problem is that, first and foremost, Jim Bob is a jerk. Self-publishing has nothing to do with it, but gets included in the disdain.
*Jim Bob is arrogant.
*Jim Bob refuses to call himself a self-publisher.
*Therefore Jim Bob thinks something is wrong with being called a self-publisher.
*Therefore, self-publishers are ashamed of the process.
Same thing. One guy makes a stink, but since he's louder and more in-your-face, he ends up being the de facto voice of a group he doesn't actually represent.
Sarah LaPolla says
Thank for linking to my post, Nathan, and for bringing up the subject yourself. I think self-publishing has reached an exciting place and the "chippers" will eventually be weeded out. Digital has created a more even playing field, so there's little reason for writers to be frustrated anymore. I think self-publishing will be mostly "good stories by talented writers who've simply chosen a different route" within the next 2-5 years. It's just sad watching the frustrated writers give self-pub a bad name for now.
Sher A. Hart says
Interesting. I haven't heard any self-pub author ranting or complaining in public against traditional publishing. In private is another matter. The indie author websites I've read focus on the control, time, and profits aspect.
I've heard far more complaints from indies about Amazon, both in erroneous price matching and for seeking exclusive sales in the KDP (not sure) program.
I only queried 6 times before deciding to rewrite from 3rd to 1st person. I'm keeping my options open while I build my platform, being positive and focusing on how to improve.
Lately I've blogged about editing to encourage indies to raise their standards. I put down over 90% due to poor editing. It's sad.
I don't comment much, but I read your posts with interest and often talk about them in my SCBWI critique group. There wasn't one where I live until I put up an ad in my region and created one. More indies should do the same, online until they find or make a local group.
Andy H says
absolutely fabulous….. enough w/ the whiny noise and the debate about which ways is better…. they both great and both have pros and cons….stop the whining folks and get on with the business of selling your books
Mira says
Wow. I can't post much now, but I don't think I've ever disagreed with you quite so strongly before, Nathan.
I think the world of you, but I see things very differently here. Although tone is always important, if people don't speak up, how will things change?
Yes, conflict and confrontation can make people uncomfortable, but they can be necessary.
More later.
Gary Ponzo says
The landscape is littered with authors who'd been tossed to the curb and yet found an audience on their own, so I understand a little bit of "Gotcha," attitude coming from succesful Indie's.
I for one am grateful for the opportunities afforded me through the new digital age, but I would never blatantly bad-mouth the traditional publishing world for any oversights. In fact, a succesful Indie author should be enthusiastic over the ability to generate a higher commision than any tradition publisher could offer.
Which means, the real cuprits here are probably frustrated Indie authors who haven't found that sweet spot for their work and are now raising their fists to their past rejections.
Sort of like yelling at a bully who just turned the corner and is out of earshot. Except publishers aren't necessarily bully's, they're just stuck in an old delivery method grabbing onto old technology with bony fingers and chewed up cigars in the corner of their mouths.
See, that wasn't a meanspirited shot, just an opinion from someone who appreciates the present and embraces the future.
Doug Brown says
I think the publishing world s frustrating overall regardless if you self-published or traditionally published. The important response is to not let your frustrations get the best of you in a public forum like the internet.
Before I was published, I received rejection letters all of the time. In fact, one agent didn't even get my name right when they rejected me. But I wasn't angry about it (disappointed, but not angry) and I may have ultimately self-published if I didn't get a publishing deal. But it wasn't to stick it to anyone. It was because I love writing and wanted to share my work.
Just my two cents.
S L Jenan says
The only place I disagree is that I think frustration with the traditional publishing process is OXYGEN. Every rejection drives better prose, better characters, more interlaced, compelling plot.
Even if I do decide to go the self-published route (and the appeal there is the covered-wagon, pioneer kind), my writing will have benefited from the struggle.
JD Rhoades says
Well, some of the most vocal "chippers", as you put it, are people I know who published some good books, worked like dogs to promote them on their own dime, made money for their publishers…and STILL got shitcanned for being "midlist" and not being bestsellers.
Even people in publishing will admit to you privately that the system is broken. On a number of occasions in my trad publishing days I was told with a sad smile and a shrug that "yes, we know this doesn't make sense, but this is the way we do it."
All that said, I agree you've got to let go of the anger and disappointment sometime. A nice payout from Amazon has a way of helping with that.
Anne-Marie says
Thank you for reminding us that whatever route we take, bad manners and bitterness are never a good idea.
I'm always astounded that writers sometimes forget that things "said" in print are forever, somewhere.
Anonymous says
I've worked hard not to be one of those self-published authors who has found success and has a chip on his shoulder.
But it's not easy, and that's because there's so much arrogance in old publishing. THEY have chips on their shoulders. Have you read the details of the DOJ settlement/suit with Carolyn Reidy? I think a prison sentence is needed here. This. Is. Criminal.
The main reason I went into self-publishing was because my publisher was screwing around with me. And then my publisher started to play games with me, using pen names and collaborating with other authors. And I got sick of it.
I do agree that authors should be careful not to have HUGE chips on their shoulders. But when you see an author who looks like he or she is bragging about success in self-publishing it's not always because of a chip on the shoulder. It's because they were screwed over by publishers who tampered with their careers…their incomes. That's serious business.
Frankly, Nathan, I believe you are a perfect example of an author who would THRIVE in self-publishing. If you don't believe me, write a short story, publish it for .99 in the KDP program, and see what happens. You need to hire a cover artist and a copyeditor. Instant Amazon bestseller! I would bet money on it. I've read your books: you're *very* talented, you have this platform established, and you would be well received.
Mary Maddox says
I've had two agents. The first lost interest when I switched from literary fiction to thrillers. The second let me go when he couldn't sell my thriller for the advance he wanted. Emotionally, it was a difficult experience, but I understood why publishers decided not to take a chance on the novel. Since I didn't want to rewrite (again), I started a small press and published it myself. I'm now starting to publish other writers. The process has given me more respect for what traditional publishers do. But their business models lead them to reject some good writing that could sell. Hence the success of many indie authors. I've also learned embarrassment about self-publishing is self-defeating. So is resentment toward agents and traditional publishers. After all, I might want to seek an agent for one of my novels.
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks, anon! We shall see.
And I should clarify that I don't think people should hide their disagreement and/or speak out about what they believe in. Just that the tone can be alienating to people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the argument.
Anonymous says
I'm anon @8:48…
Just to clarify: You publish for free on KDP. You price the story @ .99.
I know some think that's too low. But sometimes it's about volume. I'd rather sell 10,000 books @ .99 than 100 books at 10.00.
People have book budgets.
Rashad Pharaon says
Well said. No one's bound to either one.
You want to pursue Self-P? Go do it. You want to pursue Trad-P? Go do it.
Choice is good.
Julie Daines says
Oh my gosh! Thanks you a thousand times over for writing this.
Debra Dunbar says
Nice post!
I'm going self-pub on my first novel because I want to get my book out there in the hands of the reading public sooner rather than later, and I'm actually excited about handling the publishing and promotion aspects myself or via paid experts. I may be psycho, but that sorta thing is fun, fun for me!
Still, I love the idea of traditional pub and hope to go that route in the near future with other books.
Shevi says
Great article, but I'm willing to bet any self-published author who reads this will not see himself in it, even if he does have a chip on his shoulder. (Strange expression, don't you think? What kind of chip is it? A poker chip? A cow chip? Bet it's not a Pringle's chip, because then they'd have no reason to be crabby. They'd just be chopping away on that chip. But I digress.)
I have less a problem with indie authors who see themselves as you and me against the giant, greedy, corporate, money-making publishing machine. They can shake their fists all they want. They're like flies on a horse. Why should the horse care? And I'm not even the horse, so I care even less.
What does bother me is that some of these authors who have chips on their shoulders take their rage out against readers.
Sometimes it's outright, like when these writers attack reviewers. You don't even have to be indie published to do it. I'm a Vine Voice reviewer for Amazon, and a group of other Vine Voices told me about one traditionally published novelist who does this on a regular basis. That's really a stupid thing to do. It's not going to get you better reviews, and it's not going to make the people reading those reviews feel less inclined to agree with the reviewer.
Sometimes the rage is less outright, but it's still really, really wrong, like all those self-published authors who beg people on Facebook to like their fan pages or those on Twitter who beg people to download their free or $0.99 e-books. Then they have a crying fit, because they couldn't get 100 likes or they didn't get to number one on the Amazon Kindle charts.
What these writers fail to understand is that the world doesn't owe them anything. If you write a book only for yourself–to boost your ego or make a lot of money–no one will want to read it. Why? Because there are thousands upon thousands of books out there that were written for readers, books that give readers something, books that entertain, inspire, or inform. I'm not going to like you or buy your book just because you want me to. There has to be something in it for me, the reader.
Anyway, what really bugs me about writers like that is that I'm indie publishing my novels now, and so many people think all indie authors are the same. It also bothers me that sometimes the noisy wheel gets the grease. (Hmm, maybe that chip on their shoulders is the British kind that comes with fried fish. Might explain the grease.) When the hard sell does work, it means one more reader who's likely to think my book sucks because it's indie published, and all the indie published books they've read suck.
I guess I could join them, but instead of screaming, "Like me, and buy my book!" I could shout, "My books don't suck!" Nah. I'll just let my work speak for itself.
Mirka Breen says
Another good post. You are still Nate the Great.
A good reason to self-publish is because you are courageous, tireless, and want control over every aspect of the production. I admire the courage of those who go in for these reasons. Not being any of the above, I put my limited energy into writing and submitting, and now with traditionally published books, into some promoting.
If anyone thinks subbing will suck you dry, consider what being a full-time (self) Publisher will do to you. If you are up to it, you are heroic in my mind.
As to the jerks in the business, I actually think there are fewer than in most any other business. At least in kid-lit most folks are mensches.
But kvetching is a writerly prerogative. We’re so good at it, and without it- what’s the story?
Rick Daley says
I went indie for my first book, THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS, and in several interviews bloggers honed in on my history with an agent.
That relationship ended after she went six months without returning a call or email while a different book was on submission with a dozen publishers. Not the best case study, for sure, and while the interviewers seemed to ask questions setting me up for a kill shot toward her, I don't view the experience as negative. The editorial feedback I received while she was communicating helped me become a better writer, and I am thankful for that.
My personal growth trumps temporary hurt feelings. Not to get all cliche, but she taught me to fish instead of handing me a fish.
I have another indie book coming out this fall, but I plan to go traditional for my current WIP. I believe in a diversified portfolio…
Anonymous says
"Shevi" brings up a very good point:
"Anyway, what really bugs me about writers like that is that I'm indie publishing my novels now, and so many people think all indie authors are the same."
This is important for the public to know. All self-published authors are different, they all have different circumstances, and they all have different degrees of experience.
And not all are arrogant snarks 🙂 When I released my own self-published book I made a point of not being arrogant because I didn't want people…readers and publishers I've worked with… to think I was doing it out of bitterness or arrogance. In my case, I just wanted to know what it was like to have control over my career and my work for once in my life. It's been a good experience so far.
Anonymous says
1. Traditional publishers suck! They and agents don't deserve any of my hard earned money.
2. Real readers don't know who I am online where I complain (usually daily) about traditional publishers. I write and publish under pen names. Besides, readers read books, they don't waste their time on writerly blogs.
3. I've never submitted my work to a literary agent and I never will.
4. From what I've heard, going with a traditional publisher only leads to frustration. No thank you.
That "chippy" enough for you?
Sara says
"Yes, the query process is used as a torture device in some countries." HA HA HA…{sigh} {bangs head on desk} YES.
I missed out on these chippy, entertaining rants and will now promptly try to find them.
Agree with all you said! I've met one self-pubbed author and was confused by what I'll call his bizarrely extreme defensiveness. It reminded me of the same sort of defensiveness that people displayed about online dating about 10+ years ago.
Them: "Yeah, I uh…am trying online dating…NOT BECAUSE I'M DESPERATE–BECAUSE I'M *NOT*!!! I'm just trying it because I'm tired of the bar scene!! NOT BECAUSE I'M DESPERATE!! But I'm definitely NOT DESPERATE…I just don't like to breathe cigarette smoke and be surrounded by drunk people. But I swear I'm really NOT desperate!"
Me: Dude. I never thought you were desperate. I actually think it's pretty awesome and online dating makes complete sense.
I bet in 10 more years, we'll see less defensiveness about self-pubbing.
Wyndes says
I must be a uniquely lazy reader. I have never actually researched an author's history to find out if they've ever been mean to anyone on the internet before buying their book. *must work harder*
Anonymous says
For the record, anon @9:34 is NOT to be connected in any way at all with Anon @9:53 🙂
Sarah McCabe says
I'm a bit puzzled by your post. I haven't seen the attitude you describe from… well, any self published author that I know of. In fact, all the whining I see comes from people on the traditional publishing side of things. And I see a lot of people in the industry looking for ways to knock self publishing and self published authors.
And as far as authors speaking out against traditional publishing goes, it seems to me that most of the really vocal authors speaking out against traditional publishing are very successful. It doesn't seem to be hurting them at all.
Danyelle L. says
I agree 100%, but I think this goes both ways.
I have seen disdain and unkindness from those who self-publish directed towards those who choose to go the trade route. Name calling and over generalizing.
But I have also seen disdain and unkindness from those who are published commercially towards those who choose to go the self-publishing route. Other authors and writers who have flat out said that those who self-publish degrade their (trade published author's) talent and hard work.
I have pretty much given up on writer forums now, because of this attitude. I was sad to give up one forum in particular, because *in general* it's a great, uplifting place to be. But there are also a handful of vocal authors who paint everyone who self-publishes with the same broad stroke and look down on them.
I understand the chip that may be on either type of author's shoulder–trade or self-published–and sympathize. I do agree, though, that there is never a need for incivility. Never.
I wish there was a place online where writers and authors could go to support one another without judging each other on these silly hierarchies we've built for ourselves. So far, I haven't found one.
I think the biggest problem is that a vocal subset of each group paints the other with broad generalizations that cater to stereotypes instead of being happy that Author A found a path that works best for them. It may not be the best path for me, or vice versa, but that's okay. We both want the same thing, and it really shouldn't matter how we get there in the end.
Mira says
Nathan @ 8:53, that I completely agree with! Tone is very important!
Karen Akins says
Oh, this this THIS –> "It's frustrating. But frustration is to publishing what carbon dioxide is to breathing: a poisonous but inevitable byproduct. (What many self-published authors don't yet realize is that this is true of self-publishing too.)"
Indiana Jim says
I'm not one for chips on my shoulder. It seems the majority of the vocal ones who really want to "stick it to the man" aren't among the more successful at it. Bitterness does not often drive success.
I have not published much aside from a couple small press things, but I WILL be self-publishing. Why? One simple reason: the math works.
Andrew Leon says
I chose to self-publish for a number of reasons, not all of which I will point out, but I will mention a few:
1. The waste of traditional publishing — I worked in a bookstore back when I was in college and was horrified when I discovered how many books are just thrown away every year. In a similar way that I am horrified about all the food fast food joints throw away. There needs to be a better way, and bookstores shouldn't be rewarded for poor ordering decisions. (Yes, I know this is a complicated system and it's the incentive of getting their money back that prompts stores to carry new authors, but it's a waste.)
2. I was ready. My book is good, and I know it's good. Kids love it. I didn't want to deal with the years it would have taken to get my book out there and, then, still have to do most (or all) of the marketing myself. If I'm going to have to do that anyway, I may as well be in control of the process.
3. Agents. And I know you were an agent, and I know there are good agents out there. However, it seems to be that the process has become reversed. Agents should work for the authors, which is how the whole thing developed, not the other way around.
Ryan Chin says
Exuding anger and bitterness is never a good thing. However, a little bit of, "You can kiss my a$$" can be pretty satisfying too!
Just don't be malicious about it. You never know when you might end up teaming up with the big guys for wider distribution.
Agree with Anon. You have enough of a platform to self publish.
Hart Johnson says
I've run into this on discussion forums–name callers–people saying I'm an idiot for pursuing traditional because I'm 'giving my money away. But the fact of the matter is GENRE matters A LOT (I write Cozy Mystery and YA–both still hot in traditional houses) and my personality dictates I need professional eyes after I think I'm done. I just know myself that well. This is a personal decision and anyone who does their homework and makes a decision is good by me. Anybody saying ALL PEOPLE should do what they do because there is only one way is annoying and I am probably going to tell them so.
Katie says
Nathan, I TOTALLY agree with what some others have said. You should self-pub some stuff!!! You would make a killing, and it would probably be an enjoyable experience for you. I was absolutely invigorated creatively after switching to self-pub, because I had total artistic freedom and that is such a creative boost for me. You have the platform, the savvy, the connections, the talent, and you have tons and tons of fans and friends who could give you advice or help. You could do VERY well for yourself…just saying.
Of course I'm eternally grateful for traditional publishers, because (as one person once put it) they've given me almost every favorite author I've ever had. But I now know it is not all sunshine and roses. Many, many friends have been screwed over by their contracts, their agents, their publishers and they've started speaking out about it honestly and loudly. There's a lot of ugliness in the industry, a lot of grossness that shouldn't happen, and some people have chosen to speak out strongly against that ugliness in order to help people avoid getting stuck with a terrible contract or other problems. I am SO PROUD of those who have made it their goal to inform writers about their options and the potential pitfalls they could encounter as they seek to be published.
Now, when you say "self-pubbers with chips on their shoulders," I don't know who you are talking about, although I immediately think of several names of famous and outspoken indie authors who might be described as having "a chip" on their shoulders. I will avoid mentioning anybody by name here, but I am thinking of at least 4 off the top of my head. But the hilarious thing is that all of these self-publishing authors I'm thinking of have decades of experience and at least dozens of books in traditional publishing (or they have experience with law, or contract negotiation, or whatnot). They aren't making a boogeyman out of trad publishing…they are speaking from their own professional experience! If a company or organization screws you over professionally, and you say "you know what, never again," and then you tell other people what happened and how to avoid it themselves, that's not a chip, that's just basic self-respect, not to mention kindness when it comes to the warning other people part.
HOWEVER, yes, I don't think all authors are cut out to go it alone, as it's hard work and you essentially have to be an entrepreneur. Also, I think that the flame wars between trad and indie authors should stop, and I think that all authors should respect and support each other rather than fighting. We need to be on each others' sides, not at each others' throats!! It's as bad as the mommy war stuff, with the breastfeed/bottle stuff and all that.
Helen Hollick says
I so agree! I am an indie author in the UK & traditional mainstream in the US, so I am lucky, I have the best of both worlds.
I am also the Historical Novel Society's UK review editor for indie published HF. Most are not too bad a read, a few are gems – more than too many are rejects. Why? Because the authors have not taken enough trouble to find out how a book should look when it is published, or have not had the thing edited (and sorry SP people, yes I know editors are expensive – but if you want to be taken seriously as an author – do it properly!) Most of the authors I contact about rejects are thrilled at having the errors pointed out, repair them and re-print. But those with a whole fish and chip shop on their shoulders…..? oh boy! I've had some not very nice responses ranging from "My book is fine, that's how I want it" (what? with the text left justified?) to "Everyone who has read it loves it, you don't know what you are talking about." Fine – I didn't love it and I do know what I'm talking about (occasionally)- and maybe the reason I've rejected it is the same reason agents and publishers have rejected it: the book is not well written enough. Everyone can write a book. Not everyone can write a readable book.