Us vs. them is fun. It gets people’s blood boiling. It instills fear. It’s thrilling to be on a team, especially when you feel like your team is winning.
These days it seems like traditional and self-publishing are increasingly pitted against each other on blogs and forums, as if one side or the other is the bastion of all that is good and pure in the world and the other side is the bastion of all that is horrible and evil.
This is insane.
There is no “us” vs. “them.” Traditional vs. self-publishing is a false dichotomy. It’s an illusion created by people who either have let their frustrations get the best of them or are trying to sell you something. We’re all writers trying to figure out the best way to get our books to readers. We’re all on the same team.
No, the traditional publishing industry is not a hive of retrograde monsters out to steal and eat your newborn children. No, self-publishing is not a gang of unwashed crap artists trying to poison the literary well forever.
Publishing is a spectrum of choice, from traditional publishers who pay you, will handle most things for you and assume all risk in exchange for certain rights to your book, to self-publishing where you handle everything yourself, pay your own way, and adopt your own risk. And there’s a whole lot more choice in between those two poles.
What’s the right way? There is no right way.
Some authors want to let the publishers handle things for them. Some authors want to go for print glory because that’s where the bulk of readers are right now (yes, still). Some authors want the freedom of control of self-publishing. Some authors want to experiment with pricing.
And guess what: Some authors do both, and they always have. Even before e-publishing, many prominent authors got their start self-publishing. And many authors who used to be traditionally published moved to self-publishing. Some authors use hybrid models that combine elements of traditional and self-publishing.
There is no hundred foot wall between self-publishing and traditional publishing. Choosing one does not preclude the other, even if you feel like you’re currently on the outs with traditional publishing. Or did you miss the recent seven figure book deal for the self-published nutritionist?
Sure. It’s fun to join up sides and start flinging mud. It’s exciting to think that your team alone has the holy grail.
But I see a lot of authors out there getting taken for a ride by both sides. People are preying on writers’ fears and frustrations.
The only way you’ll be able to decide what’s best for you is if you ignore the pied pipers, set aside your emotions, and think only about what’s the right for your book.
Art: La Riña – Francisco de Goya
Anonymous says
I know many writers who are self-pubbed. One or two of them are good writers.
I know many writers who are e-pubbed or indie-pubbed. A few of them are good writers.
I know many writers who are traditionally pubbed. Almost all of them are good writers.
'Nuff said.
Dianne L Gardner says
I really don't see where anyone has the choice to get published by the traditional publishers. I mean they can choose to submit, but that doesn't mean they have a choice to get published. Its the big publishing houses that choose. And if your work doesn't fit their bill, you don't get published by them, so then you have to choose another means. That's just what I've been seeing and experiencing.
Tom C. Cole says
Traditional and self-publishing are processes, and you're right – authors are free to pursue one, the other, or a combination of the two at any time during their writing careers. And the two processes can co-exist peacefully.
However, there are PEOPLE involved in these processes, and when people are involved that are proponents of one OR the other (like in politics), you will invariably get an "us and them" mentality. Ironically, the comments of your post are further evidence of this.
And it doesn't help things, in my view, when you have agents ordering self-published authors (in capital letters no less) to stop calling themselves 'indies' (which you linked to in your last post). Live and let live I say.
Tom C. Cole
Maggie Dana says
Well said, Dianne. My thoughts exactly.
Isabella Amaris says
Ha may I say that I guessed a post on this false dichotomy would be coming soon?:) Glad it's finally here. The trad vs indie debate is getting tired… and a bit ugly, I thought.
For those who believe there was or is great potential for exploitation of writers under the current system (and I'm one of those who has such a concern), I've always felt that it muddies the waters when a discussion on such exploitation promptly descends into mud-slinging on an issue which is actually tangential, ie traditional vs indie/self publishing…
Exploitation is exploitation is exploitation… Wherever it begins or ends, it affects all writers at the end, not just those in one particular spectrum of the publishing paths available to us… There should be no 'vs' when it comes to writers choices in the current climate — 'cf' (compare and contrast) seems more appropriate — if only to remind us that we are all still part of the same community, and so that we are in the right frame of mind to support each other unreservedly when exploitation of any kind actually is flagged up by a fellow writer/publishing industry professional…
Sorry, off my soapbox now:) Nice post.
Terin Tashi Miller says
Amen, Nathan.
And I also agree with Tom C. Cole. Nice to see your "by-line" again, Tom.
Holly_D says
Thanks for this wonderful and insightful post, Nathan. I've been looking at both options for my novel. Still giving it some thought. But you are so right. Everywhere I turn it feels like a war on the web between self-publishing and going with an agency/publishing house. I too have felt it is what you think is best for your career path. No one way is wrong. Again, well said.
A.J.Race says
I have to agree with you here, we are really both on the same side and more importantly it's hard to say that one is better than the other because frankly BOTH have put out good and bad books.
Bob says
Frankly this whole argument is a year out of date. I see so many terms and phrases that were being discussed then. Hybrid author is something I blogged about over a year ago. Setting aside emotions and dealing with business is the same.
Time to move on folks. Everyone's platform is different, everyone's product is different, and everyone's goal is different. To argue about a right or wrong or a side is a waste.
Actually, the new hybrid author is a new breed and that should scare NY. It's a "self" published author who also signs with an Amazon imprint.
The only upside to a NY contract would be well over 6 figures so you're guaranteed some push in house and even then, at BEA in two weeks, you'll see each of the Big 6 really pushing less than 5% of their titles. The elite 5% who are now strongly defending legacy publishing like Scott Turow and Richard Russo. Of course they defend the hand that feeds them well. But my new bone of contention is when those guys slam Amazon, at the same time they need to absolutely insist that their publishers pull their titles from Amazon. Can't have it both ways, guys.
K. L. Romo says
Hi Nathan – I've enjoyed your posts. Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with Remus on this one.
MJRose says
Great post Nathan!!!
I do see the lines in the sand for the first time and and am unhappy to see them.
It's not us vs them for me since I both self and trad publish and have since my first self pubbed book sold well enough to make some noise and get picked up by S&S in 1999. (The dinosaur era before we even called them ebooks!)
I like doing both for different reasons not pertinent here.
I'm also one of the few authors who ever disagree with Joe using my own name and often post there exactly for the reason you've blogged here, Nathan. Because it really isn't black and white one size fits all.
What's exciting now is all the options. As Eisler says and I agree – its a lottery no matter which you do. It's about your goals, your book, your interest to go into business for your self or have partners and on and on. There are reasons to self that have nothing to do with $ just as there are reasons to trad publish that have nothing to do with $.
Not every author who signs a trad contract is stupid. No matter what level they're at- not just the top 10% who are making huge money.
And not every self pubbed author does it b/c they can't get a trad deal.
There's a meme that more than 1000 self pubbed authors sell 1000 books a month – even if the average price they sell them at is $2.99 – and they get $2000 a month – there are wayn more than 1000 trad pubbed authors who make ore than $24,000 a year.
Amy Sue Nathan says
There shouldn't be a line, that's true! What I don't understand is why it's ok for DIY authors to bash the traditional publishing establishment and the authors who prefer that way of publishing, yet I don't see it going the other way. Opinions are fine, but criticizing an author's choice, is not. I have many friends who have chosen to do it themselves. A few have been financially successful. It was never an option for me, and I was ridiculed for it. Saying "the only reason to go with a publisher is…" or being negative about agents and editors, diminishes all writers, all book lovers, all readers. Even within these comments, when your post is asking us to come together, commenters say you're right and then pummel the idea of regular publishing. What I witness is a double standard. It is OK for DIYers to be bitter and negative toward what they don't want to do with their books, but if it goes the other way authors are considered elitist or without vision. Frankly, I worry about myself, not what anyone else does. I prefer not to judged for my choice to publish with a traditional publisher, but on the merit of my book. Just like I do for DIYers whom I choose to read.
Amy Sue Nathan says
Also, the folks who say that traditional publishing is no longer an option, aren't reading Publisher's Marketplace or following the industry closely. I'm involved with dozens of debut authors publishing via traditional publishers and there are more every day.
Michael M Dickson says
Nice work Nathan as always.
Anonymous says
Nathan said…"I actually agree with Sarah about the term "indie" – to me it has always meant independent publishers like Soho, Greywolf, etc. and I still use "traditional" and "self-publishing" instead of "indie" and "legacy. I understand what you're saying that the spirit of self-publishing is independent, but to me there's a certain oppositional attitude inherent in "indie" and "legacy" that kind of rubs me the wrong way. The word for self-publishing had already existed; I don't know why a new one was needed and why another one had to be co-opted."
I used to feel the same way, too. Until I actually did self-publish…lol. But seriously, what really bothers me is that I somehow get the feeling that self-published authors prefer "indie" to self-published because it elevates them and takes away the stigma of self-publishing. And I think that's wrong. I've had MORE success self-published than traditionally published, and I prefer to embrace the term self-published and help bring credibility to self-publishing.
Different Anon…
Brigetta Schwaiger says
Excellent post. I recently self-published my novel and did it for the freedom and ease. But, I in no way have any ill will toward the traditional publishing industry. We are all written word lovers, right?
Margo says
Amy Sue Nathan said…
"There shouldn't be a line, that's true! What I don't understand is why it's ok for DIY authors to bash the traditional publishing establishment and the authors who prefer that way of publishing, yet I don't see it going the other way."
To be gentle but honest, you aren't looking for it, then.
I know *prominent* writing forums where sucessful self-publishers have been *banned* for posting about self-publishing in positive terms. I've seen writers here on Nathan's comment section call self-published writers frauds. There is a post a few above yours on *this* thread that basicaly says self-published writers can't write. There's a romance author who is famous for trying to destroy the reputations of every self-pubber she encounters because she believes they have NO RIGHT to pubish. I've seen trad writer advocate for the outright censorship of self-pubbed authors. (And, yes, I've seen behavior from the other side that is just as bad.)
If we're going to get over the knee-jerk reaction of dealing with our fears by pointing fingers and shrieking, then we're going to have to acknowledge that the problem exists on both sides because the fear exists on both sides. The fear of INvalidation. The fear of someone else getting what we feel we've worked for. The fear of failure. And so on.
Karen Cantwell says
Gee, I just learned from Remus that I'm a lottery winner. Who knew?
What I do know is that I am very happy that I have published on my own, have reached a reading audience on my own, and have reaped a higher-than-expected financial reward for the effort. But I was self-employed prior to choosing this path, so I'm very accustomed to running the show.
When I talk to new writers wondering "which way to go," I always tell them that if they have any inclination, hope, or desire to travel the traditional path, then they need to give it a good go.
But truthfully, I have found that very few readers really know or care where your book was published. I was recently asked to attend a local book club that had chosen my book to read. One of the questions they asked me was "who's your publisher?" They had no idea I had published myself. When I told them, not only were they delighted, but were very excited to hear more about the industry and why I made the choice I did.
Do I see myself pitted in a battle of publish vs. self-publish? Not at all. Everyone has to make the choices that are right for them. But what excites me to no end is the very fact that CHOICES can be made by authors now. Authors CAN have control, find readers, and succeed on their own. Truly, it is a Golden Age for writers.
R.E. McDermott says
I agree with Karen and share her joy to discover that I too, am a lottery winner! Like her, I was also self-employed and way too used to doing things my own way to consider traditional publishing.
Having said that, I've got no beef with others that choose that path. None of the reasons usually given for that choice resonate with me, but that really doesn't matter.
As a wise person once said"
You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to!
Dan says
Any commercially published author can self-publish if he wants to. Almost no self-published authors can get their work commercially published.
Self-published authors don't compete with most commercially published authors; self-publishers are flourishing in a market segment in which commercial publishers are unwilling to participate.
If big publishers were to slash prices on slow-selling backlist e-books to $2.99, it would likely push most self-published authors off the radar. However, have a good reason for not wanting to do this; they believe that very cheap backlist e-books would cannibalize their frontlist sales, while most readers of new fiction don't view self-published titles as a substitute product.
Jamie Sedgwick says
Not all authors have a choice. I'm one of those who couldn't get a publisher, primarily because I couldn't even get an agent. I went out on my own -out of necessity- and have since learned that I can sell 1,500 books a month without a publisher OR an agent. I have no ill will for "legacy" authors. Most of the time, when I hear their stories, I just feel sorry for them.
But what does get to me is when people like Scott Turow of the so-called "Author's Guild" write letters to the DOJ making statements like this:
"Let’s hope… the Justice Department reconsiders. The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition. This would be tragic for all of us who value books, and the culture they support."
Make no mistake, the lines have been drawn, and not by those of us who went out on our own. The lines are being drawn by supporters of the legacy system who are terrified by what they see coming, and instead of facing it with vision, they are attempting to destroy it by any means possible. Writers, as usual, are caught in the middle. We want to make a living doing what we love, but we are being TOLD to choose a side. So let's not point fingers at writers, let's point fingers where the real problem lies.
This is disruptive technology in action. This is an old-guard system in the death throes, blaming the new system for accomplishing that which it could not achieve. We'd all love to see our books on the shelf in a bookstore, but the very essence of what a book is, is changing. We have no fault in this, but we do in how we respond to it.
cgblake says
Nathan,
Once again, you are the voice of reason. As an author who ended up self-publishing, I revere the traditional publishing world. I would much rather have been traditionally published. The problem I have with this whole discussion is the use of the word "choice." Many of us (especially older writers like me who write in the wrong genre) really don't have a choice. I don't have ten years to spend honing and pitching my novel. I want to write more novels. The choice was made for me, not by me.
I hope people on all sides can see that in the current environment, writers and readers have wide choices and opportunities and that's ultimately a good thing.
I love your blog. Keep up the great work.
Other Lisa says
@Jamie, there are some things about your comment that I don't follow.
How do the "lines drawn" in the DoJ suit affect you as a self-published authors? Basically the agency model was all about publishers controlling the prices of their ebooks, and the anti-DoJ argument that Turow was making is that Amazon engaged in predatory pricing practice that was in itself monopolistic behavior.
Whether you agree with that or disagree with that, I don't see how it is very relevant to self-published authors. The issues under debate don't affect your ability to set your own prices. Frankly the only argument I can see is that lower ebook prices from Big Six publishers might negatively impact self-publishers, because you've lost some of your competitive pricing advantage.
How do the Big Six's pricing strategies constitute a line drawn against you as a self-published author? I just don't see it. How are you being forced to choose sides?
And as a "legacy published" author, I would really like to know why you feel sorry for me.
This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. You do what's best for you as an author and as a businessperson and your particular set of circumstances.
Chicki says
All of this kumbaya sounds very nice in theory, but what I've seen repeatedly online is traditional authors bashing indie AUTHORS. Indie authors might bash publishers and the industry in general, but never other authors who've chosen to go the legacy route.
Anonymous says
This is actually a pretty idiotic debate. 99% of all authors, good or bad, will never get published by a traditional publisher. That's a fact. Many more will have meager sales and not earn their advances. So, except for a select few, there really is no option. It's self-publishing or no publishing.
Jamie Sedgwick says
Other Lisa said: “How do the "lines drawn" in the DoJ suit affect you as a self-published authors?”
Thank you for admitting my point that the lines have been drawn. Whether it affects me directly, indirectly, or not at all, this is an illegal collusion that is damaging to all legacy-published authors, and therefore potentially to all authors, period. If it affects my friends, my colleagues, or my potential future, I have a right to care. Why are you so defensive? Do you think I shouldn’t care about what happens to other writers? Is that how you feel?
“And as a "legacy published" author, I would really like to know why you feel sorry for me.”
If you’re happy with your situation, then you have nothing to complain about and I have nothing to empathize. That must mean you’re not one of the authors I was talking about. But if you’d like to hear their stories, please see http://www.google.com. Or, check the websites of Dean Wesley Smith, Joe Konrath, Barry Eisler, and Kristine Kathryn Rusch. You won’t just hear their stories, but the stories of hundreds (!) of authors who are or were legacy published. And -maybe- you’ll feel sorry for them like I do.
“This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. You do what's best for you as an author and as a businessperson and your particular set of circumstances.”
I agree with you 100%. If the right agent or publisher came along, I would certainly take advantage of that situation. But when organizations that claim to represent and protect the interests of authors turn around and support an industry standard that is extremely damaging, I’ll call it what it is.
Kate Milford says
I apologize in advance. I have to do this in two comments. I tried to cut it down, but…well. I failed.
I’m sort of one of those hybrids. I’m trad-pubbed (one book out, another out in Sept, and releases with two publishers slated for 2014), but I’m about to release my first self-pub effort in print and digital in September. My plan is to publish novellas between traditional releases and as companions to them.
I’ve heard from other authors curious about how both types of publishing can be combined. Most are authors with experiences like mine: they're trad-pubbed but want to provide extra content to their readers and to take advantage of the extra reach the evolving publishing landscape offers. So far no one’s asked if, having dipped my toes in the water, I would consider shifting totally to self-pubbing. If they had, I’d have said absolutely not. This isn’t a judgment; it has everything to do with how I want to spend my time and what’s important to me. I can only speak to my own experience, but a few of my reasons for not wanting to give up my publishers are:
1) I don’t want to do everything myself. The last two months of semi-consistent blogging and outreach have just about killed me. I hate it. I want to be writing, not talking to people about my writing. I do have to do some of that for my trad-pubbed books, but I’m adding my voice to a small chorus of other voices, not shouting alone into a void.
2) Every book I’ve written has gotten better thanks to being put through the wringer that is the publishing process. I have a crit group and beta-readers that I trust, but even after they’ve whipped a ms into better shape, running the gauntlet of my agent and my editor and the five other assorted people who make me revise a book before publication makes the ms better on a whole other level. Maybe not every author needs this process, but I do. I am—no lie—TERRIFIED that the ms I’m publishing is going to betray the absence of all those extra sets of eyes. I’ve hired an editor and a copyeditor, but I’m still terrified.
3) Having a print copy of the book in stores around the country is important to me. Books as objects are precious to me. This isn’t fear of technology; I’m married to a hacker-turned-systems administrator and I know my way around the tech world, but digitally it isn’t how I like to read. My trad-pubbed books are beautiful objects. So far, they’ve all been gorgeously illustrated, too, which I could never have afforded. I can only afford to get the same illustrator for the novella's cover (which I wanted to do because it's related to the bks she illustrated) because she has become a friend and believes heartily in the project. She’s basically donating her time, and if she hadn’t already fallen in love with the characters and the world, I don’t think she would’ve had any motivation to do that.
I don’t want to give any of that up. And I didn’t mention advances in the list above. Would I like to have six-figure deals from my publishers? Well…I don’t know. With the advances I get, I know I’ll earn out and the book will stay in print. So to those who say a huge advance would be the only reason to go to a publisher—that's valid, if either you know your book will earn out that advance or you don’t care if it stays in print or not.
Kate Milford says
Now, the flip side, for 2/2. I should just have written a blog post in reply.
I’m not blind to the opportunities of self-pub. Here’s why, having started, I will continue to self-pub companion pieces:
1) I can continually offer readers more content. When I get an email from a kid asking if I’ll write more about a particular character, if the idea catches me I can run with it and not worry about whether or not a publisher thinks there’s enough of a market for it to justify the costs. I can tailor my content more directly to my audience’s wishes.
2) I can make risky choices. In one of my 2014 titles, the story hinges around a book of local folklore, so the companion novella will be the folklore book itself. My publisher isn’t likely to want to publish it, and I perfectly understand why. But I can do it myself, and I think readers will love it.
3) I can move quickly. I’d been kicking this idea around for a while, but I only got the idea for the 1st story, The Kairos Mechanism, in February. By April it was written and I had a budget; as of a wk ago it was funded on Kickstarter (and it’s still raising money), and it’ll be ready to go right on schedule in September.
4) I can do innovative things that involve readers directly (for instance, Kairos has a digital reader-illustrated edition). And I can choose increased reach and finding new readers over income and offer the novella free, if I want.
I didn’t mention higher royalties there because I’d write even if I made no money at it. That was my lifestyle for 15 yrs; I worked a string of full-time retail jobs to pay the rent and wrote at night. Making the most possible from every book has never been my motivation. Seeing my book on the shelves and getting emails from 9 and 10 yr-old strangers who found my book and loved it—that motivates me.
And now you see why I need 6 rounds of editing.
Other Lisa says
@Jamie, I put "lines drawn" in quotes because I was quoting you. I am not in any way "admitting" that the DoJ case constitutes some kind of line that's being drawn between traditionally published authors and self-published authors. It's a conflict between Apple/Big Six publishers (and by extension the traditional publishing industry, though not all publishers are on board with the agency model) and Amazon — NOT authors who are publishing through one entity or the other.
In fact there are arguments that many authors are making on the side of the Big Six. Not necessarily because the agency model is best for them in the short term (or even in the long term), but because they appreciate that diversity in publishing IS important to the longterm health of the industry and to their careers in the longterm as well, and they feel that the DoJ suit will encourage greater monopoly rather than less. But there's absolutely no reason why this means that traditionally published authors and self published authors are on opposite sides of some battle line.
You're reading Konrath et al, and while I know he provides good information he also has a considerable axe to grind. How many traditionally published authors do you personally know who have been literally ripped off? I'm not talking about having complaints with how the publishing industry is structured, because you will hear plenty of those (I have my own list). But how many traditionally published authors have you asked if they would prefer to abandon their publisher and only self-publish?
(I talked about the cases I personally know of that I feel constitute "rip-off" on the earlier thread. None were with Big Six publishers, FWIW)
Are there traditionally published authors who are no longer interested in that and want to go it completely on their own? Yes. But the great majority of authors I know would not choose to quit their traditional publishing career, in spite of their complaints about the industry.
You're fighting for a group of authors who don't necessarily agree with your reasons for battle or your battle plan. And this is the thing that Nathan was writing about in his post and elaborating upon in his comments.
Mira says
So this will probably sound like I'm up on a high horse, sorry, but Lisa, you may not agree with Jaime, but she also clearly doesn't agree with you. You both feel strongly, but I wonder if instead of arguing, maybe you could each try to understand the other person's viewpoint. Otherwise, it tends to go around in circles.
Again, I don't mean to sound 'holier than thou', but in terms of the spirit of the post. Sorry.
In terms of the DOJ suit, my thoughts: many self-publishers have as much of a stake in Amazon as traditionally published authors have in traditional publishing. So, I think the DOJ suit affects them directly.
I'd like to add one more thing about why self-publishers are reaching out to traditionally published authors. It may not always be in the best tone, because some people are angry, but there is a reason besides just venting feelings.
It's called collective bargaining power.
The more authors protest the conditions and the contracts of traditional publishing, the more publishers may feel they need to change. That would benefit every author.
Mira says
"Otherwise, it tends to go around in circles".
I should mention that, of course, I know this from personal experience. I pitch it with the best of them. Obviously, I've did this two days ago with you, Lisa.
But I'm working on my communication skills, and trying to figure out how to PERSUADE, rather than just take a stand. That's my new goal.
Jamie Sedgwick says
@ Lisa, I'm not sure where you got the idea that our philosophies are at odds or that I'm "fighting" with one group or another. I'm glad you're traditionally published and that it has made you happy. I don't suggest that any one path will work for everyone. I'm thrilled that I've been able to make a career on my own when other options failed me. This is a thing to celebrate IMHO. Things are getting better for authors, not worse.
I said that the author's guild does not appear to be representing the interests of its clients when it vocally supports a system that damages those clients. In throwing its weight behind this corrupt and illegal price-fixing, the guild has proven everything I've just stated. Pretending the problem isn't there is like pretending we haven't been eating, drinking, and breathing radiation from Japan for the last year. The problem is still there. People who defend a corrupt and illegal status quo are usually somehow profiting from it. I empathize with those writers who've had their careers damaged in one way or another and you should as well, although I've yet to hear you say that you do.
I'm not a member of the guild and after what I've seen this year I wouldn't join if I could. You can sensationalize that into some sort of battle-royal between Indie and legacy authors if you want, but the truth is that its just another example of a corrupted good ol' boy system. That's where the line has been drawn, and at this point it's pretty hard not to see it.
And the premise that this is about diversity in publishing is just plain silly. There's more diversity in publishing today than at any other point in history. And that "diversity" wasn't nearly so important when two or three big corporations were running thousands of bookstores and small publishers out of business. Diversity didn't become important to the good ol' boys until they ended up on their own chopping block.
Nathan Bransford says
See, this I where arguments derail – when people aren't acknowledging that the other side may have a valid perspective they just happen to disagree with. I don't even agree with the Authors' Guild stance, but the reason they believe what they believe is not because they are corrupt demons, but because they believe the agency model has fostered competition in the book marketplace, which they believe is good for authors. I don't think anyone supports collusion, but there are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people who believe the DOJ's cure may be worse for the book world.
I'm not much interested in hosting a discussion that does not treat the other side's arguments in good faith, and that goes for both sides. So let's elevate this discussion if it is going to continue.
Marilyn Peake says
Actually, the Department of Justice found Amazon to have gone above and beyond in following the law and actually held Amazon up as an example of legal business practice. Like it or not, the law is designed to protect the consumer, NOT to protect the special interest group inside an organization, no matter how much people inside the organization love their organization and want it to succeed. The law states that stores are allowed to discount prices, but not to the point where the business will be deprived of a certain amount of profit. When Amazon first decided to lower prices of the Big Six’s eBooks to $9.99 each (much higher than the less expensive eBooks on Amazon, by the way) it also volunteered to make up any lost money on each and every eBook that the Big Six had originally priced higher and give that money to the Big Six. That is awesome for consumers and that’s who the law is designed to protect. We’re actually debating in this country whether or not the laws should be changed, so that the oligarchy rather than the average citizen should be protected, but right now most of our laws protect the consumer. The way that free market capitalism has been practiced in recent years is that competition forces businesses to modernize and change in order to keep up with changing times. The Big Six have enough money to enter the digital world and compete; no one’s stopping them.
I find it interesting that many of the same arguments used against the DOJ decision and Amazon are very similar to those used by canal owners against the railroads when the first railroads were built in the United States. The canal owners were threatened by modernization and they saw the railroads as behaving immorally by expanding the railroad system. Thank goodness for the laws that gave us railroads or we’d still be traveling by canal.
Anonymous says
Nathan said, "I don't think anyone supports collusion, but there are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people who believe the DOJ's cure may be worse for the book world."
Wait. The DOJ is simply enforcing the law. You're saying that, if the DOJ's cure is bad for the book world, then it shouldn't enforce the law? Since enforcing the law is what the DOJ does, I don't know any other way to interpret what you're saying. And when five of the six major publishers and Apple met together to fix prices, we shouldn't call that collusion? What should the DOJ call it then? I'm seriously asking these questions. There are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people in the banking world, too, but laws have been broken there as well.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
The DOJ should absolutely enforce the law. But there are a wide range of outcomes for a possible settlement.
Also you mention banking – the DOJ hasn't exactly run hog wild looking for illegality there. None of this is totally cut and dry.
Other Lisa says
Well, this is frustrating.
A couple of points, mostly to reiterate.
1. People are making generalizations and characterizations of the publishing industry that do not match my own experience or the experience of most authors I know who are in it.
2. In terms of the DoJ case, many authors question its merits and whether it is good for the industry as a whole.
I actually am an agnostic about the DoJ case. I'm not a legal expert, and I'm not a publishing industry expert, but I try to stay informed. I think at this point, regardless of how it's ultimately settled, the agency model is dead and the business moves on. Whether it bought enough time to foster the competition that those in favor of it claimed it would, we'll just have to see.
It's my understanding that some legal experts question the merits of the government's case and whether it would hold up court. We'll see what happens if/when Penguin continues to hold out, I guess.
What I am not saying that everything is fine and dandy, because it's not. Many authors have a lot of complaints, and big ones at that. Unfortunately we're not talking about those.
What I am hearing here is, "the industry is totally corrupt, it rips off authors, and we'd all be a lot better off if it completely collapsed."
I feel like I'm being labeled an apologist for corruption simply for trying to lay out the situation as I see it.
There are several other points here I'd like to address.
First, the interests of consumers and the interests of authors are not necessarily the same. If your overriding concern is lower prices, at least admit that this doesn't necessarily help authors.
Second, speaking of low prices, let's take as an example a company like Walmart. I forget the factoid now, but Walmart has more economic power than a majority of the world's countries. How has Walmart used that power? Yes, it's brought us low prices. It's also driven under many small businesses that cannot compete with its scale, it's depressed wages, it has placed burdens on the surrounding community because many of its workers don't have health insurance and have to reply on public resources. Here is a Pulitzer prize winning series from the LA Times about "the Walmart Effect" if you are interested.
It is not at all clear that low prices override everything else when it comes to the best interest of consumers; in fact I think it's safe to say that they do not.
Mira, FWIW, I'm strongly pro-union. I'm not sure how an author's union would work, though people definitely talk about it. It would probably have to be something like SAG or the WGA, where you cross a certain income threshold to be eligible.
Marilyn Peake says
OtherLisa,
No way will I ever admit that lower prices do not help authors. I know MANY, MANY, MANY authors who have benefited tremendously by Amazon allowing us, the writers, to choose when to lower and when to raise our prices.
And Walmart is a whole different kettle of fish, an entirely different business model than Amazon. Walmart saves money by selling products made by slaves in Third World countries and crushing unions in the United States. Last time I checked, Amazon wasn't selling books made by slaves in Third World countries. Rather, Amazon entered the digital age at exactly the same time that customers wanted eBooks. Going even beyond that, Amazon recently purchased robots that can work side by side with humans to modernize the packaging of paper books and other items for shipment. Jeff Bezos has also started Blue Origin, his own company for going into outer space. He's embracing technology and helping to move the world forward. Interestingly, NASA is helping rather than fighting the private rocketship companies, as the writing is on the wall that outer space exploration will be changing from government-funded to privately funded. The extreme cooperation between NASA and private space enterprise was displayed a few days ago when NASA assisted SpaceX's Dragon capsule dock at the International Space Station. That was incredibly awesome, and offered a glimpse into our quickly advancing world!
Marilyn Peake says
OtherLisa,
Thinking about this further, I should add that I believe what’s happening to the book industry is very similar to what happened to the music industry. The companies that digitized music and brought prices way down were the companies that gave modern consumers what they wanted. I’m certainly thrilled that I don’t have to deal with cumbersome and expensive vinyl record albums in order to listen to music, but I do understand that the modernization of the music industry was difficult for those inside that industry as changes were made.
Anonymous says
Nathan, yeah, unfortunately hardly anyone understood the complex ways in which derivatives work, so some of the top bank guys were actually hired by the government to try to straighten out the mess rather than tried in court. Since very few people are privy to what went on behind closed doors, we don't know exactly why these decisions were made, although it was probably at least partially an attempt to save the world markets from completely collapsing. Collusion is a much more simple legal case, although most of the publishers settled out of court and a bunch of emails were illegally deleted, so we'll probably never know what happened there either.
February Grace says
Once again you are the clarion call to reason amidst chaos.
Thank you. LOVE this.
bru
Nicole says
Thanks for posting this, Nathan. It's good to see a former agent saying that self-publishing isn't the first step on a road to nowhere. I'm particularly happy that you mentioned experimenting because that is honestly one of the main reasons I'm considering self-publishing one of my books (lots of agent nibbles, but no bites). I'm curious as to how it might do, but was worried that by doing so other agents/editors would look down on me for that. Like, "Oh, you couldn't get published in the traditional way so that must mean you're no good" or just something like that, you know? Basically what you said about the conceptions surrounding it.
So yeah, maybe I will give it a go as an experiment…
John Stanton says
I don't want to feel any bitterness towards traditional publishing houses. They are one avenue (an increasingly smaller avenue) for getting my work to the reader and I'll take any avenue I can get.
As far as some bitter divide between self-publishing and traditional publishing…
They Started It Man!
For years they made fun of us and called us names,
They said we would stink up literature,
they said they decided what real books were,
*sniffs back tears from unrelated childhood memories*
Once, *sniff* …three or four of the big guys took my friend's manuscript on the playground and were tossing it around playing keep away…
*pausing to swallow the pain*
They didn't want to publish it, they just didn't want him to have it…
They would…
*dabbing away a tear of loneliness*
…have these big parties where they would talk about us and not invite us…
They would give us wedgies and noogies and wouldn't let us into their fancy bookstores…
But, it's okay. We all have to work together and I'm not bitter.
*deep breath*
Anyway, this is my new friend, Amazon, he's bigger than than any of those guys!
And during recess, for 60% less milk money, he will take their readers and their writers so nobody will go to their big fancy bookstores!
So there! Who's getting the wedgies now! Huh! How's it feel?! Doesn't feel very good! Does it!?!
…
uh…
oops…
I guess I pretty much just blew it with any traditional publishers out there….
Mira says
Marilyn, I always love when you contribute, you are very informed!
Lisa, I'd love, love, love to see a writer's union. Seems like it's way overdue.
I wonder how one would form that?
MarkBeyer says
While getting books to readers is the name of the game, the method by which authors are paid is the high-stakes stand-off b/w traditional and self-publishing. Literary "value" doesn't seem to have much say, given that genre fiction — by definition "weak" literature — tops best seller charts. But for all the variety of interests readers express through their purchases, the "how" and "how much" has, in many ways, been finally put into the hands of the writers via the self-publishing paradigm.
Vanessa says
I'm adding to the conversation late, but one thing that always strikes me with self-publishing vs trad discussions is that people seem to mainly be talking about fiction.
I rarely hear about non-fiction or from non-fiction authors which way they've chosen to go… Which seems to me to be leaving out a huge part of the story. (Cough, pun sorry, cough.) Given that non-fiction is vastly, vastly more profitable for publishers, while also requiring much more stringent QA.
Are there any non-fic authors out there who can shed some light?
Unknown says
It looks like everyone else has already said everything! But let me just say thank you for this post. It's a very confusing process, trying to decide which way to publish. It shouldn't be a "this or that" scenario with an obvious winner/loser. Should it?
Nancy Beck says
I don’t want to do everything myself. The last two months of semi-consistent blogging and outreach have just about killed me. I hate it. I want to be writing, not talking to people about my writing. I do have to do some of that for my trad-pubbed books, but I’m adding my voice to a small chorus of other voices, not shouting alone into a void.
@Kate Milford – Don't bother with any marketing or promo stuff; just make sure you keep getting books out there. The more books you have out there (novels/novelettes/novellas/whatever), the more of a chance people will take a chance on picking them up…and becoming a lifelong fan.
But you don't have to listen to a nobody like me. Go over to Dean Wesley Smith's blog or his wife, Kristine Kathryn Rusch's, blog. Both continually say NOT to do this if you only have 3-4 books out.
I realize you're also trad published, but to do such endless promo work isn't fun. I limit myself to doing tweets and blog posts when the spirit moves me – and only if it's fun to do.
Please, read Dean's series on Thinking Like a Publisher, and see if a lot (if not most) of it makes a ton of sense.
Good luck! 🙂
Wendy Tyler Ryan says
I have waited a long time for just one thing to matter – good writing/story telling. Yes, it's kind of two things, but not really.
I agree that flinging mud is pointless but I don't think it will stop any time soon.
I also have to agree with Remus a little. If you're a name, you can easily decide to self publish. Not selling well as a self-published author does not mean your book is poorly written or your story is crap, it means that out of 24 hours in a day, self-published authors only have so much time and so many places to promote themselves before they have to get back to the business of writing. I hate marketing. HATE it. I want to write and I am struggling to do the marketing well.
Publishers should not put all their stock in self-published stats as a means of deciding to take on a self-published author. They need to read what the author has written, not just look at dollar signs (Amanda Hocking), sorry, just clearing my throat.
Bonnee Crawford says
I read in a recent post on Alexis Grant's blog that Ebooks can compliment your traditional publishing, and I've heard plenty of success stories from both trad and self-published authors. I see no reason why they should be put against each other when in all reality they could easily work together and help each other out.
Thanks for your words.