Everything You Thought You Knew is Wrong

Exactly. Writing is made up of artistic decisions. How you publish is a personal business decision and YMMV.

What? A book is an artistic object, like a painting. Publishing is both a business decision and an artistic statement. To say it's only about business sucks the fun out of producing a book. What am I missing?

When it comes to writing, I think CC is a business decision first, an artistic concern second. And as I noted to Henry, once that initial decision of commerce vs. art is made, all other options can be viewed in their proper context.

Hey Henry, hey Will. Business has to be part of the decision making process or we're kidding ourselves. I think a lot of people forget that punk had Malcolm MacLaren pushing the buttons. The decision to make my ebooks free is certainly based on the business proposition that I need readers if I'm ever going to make a living.

On the other hand, I want to make my living writing so I can do more of it and give more of what I do away for free. HOW I publish is part artistic integrity – I am now at a stage where I don't think I'd be comfortable publishing my fiction through the mainstream because I want absolute editorial control, and I want to run my own marketing (which will of course have business repercussions Ihope will be favourable). On the other hand, I'd happily write articles I was paid for for journals with an editorial standpoint I could run with (I do do this).

The point is, it's not as imple as one or the other, and each plays into the other. Anyone book business person who just cares about the bottom line will go bust; and anyone who claims artists are about nothing but freedom of expression at any cost needs to read a history book.

I know Will – didn't think you meant that for a minute. I think we're all in agreement pretty much.

Luck!

However, if you are listed in the Ingram's catalog, you DO have the option of *being ordered* by someone walking in off the street. I would advise you to do that.

What goes unmentioned in any debate over the legitimacy of self-publishing i the ego factor. In the minds of some, if not most, traditionally published authors, there is a cachet about having achieved the goal of getting the nod from the mainstream industry. They have worked hard. They have followed the rules. They have suffered multiple rejections. They have “paid their dues.”

Then along comes someone who refuses to follow those rules and seeks alternatives. Should that someone actually be successful, it would challenge the accepted wisdom that there is only one legitimate way to become a published author. To those who embrace that accepted wisdom without reservation, that success would lessen the glow of their own achievement.

So, those who would choose to self-publish (or sign with a publisher that doesn't pay advances or do print runs) are given dire warnings that they will never have their books in bookstores (not true) or will be scammed by their “publisher” (ironic, given they begin receiving royalties six months or less after their book comes out, and without any of it being held back against returns, and that their book remains in print as long as they and the publisher agree to keep it there).

There is a huge level of turf-protection evident whenever one discusses alternative models of publishing with those who have succeeded in the traditional one; Harlequin Horizons is just the latest installment.

Ten years ago, when on-demand printing was in its infancy, there was some basis for many of the cautions propagated by mainstream authors and agents, and their organizations. That they continue to repeat the same, decade-old “facts” as if nothing has changed says more about them than about the business models they condemn.

Ego and turf protection are probably the BIGGEST factors in anti-self-publishing sentiment, and why vanity publishing and indie publishing are often combined in the debate to muddy the definitions.

There's also the condescension of protecting the “innocent writer”, as if they're somehow an exception to the rules of caveat emptor and due diligence. Ten years ago, falling for a vanity publishing scam was easy; nowadays, though, there's simply no excuse.

Hmm. People put their own money up for movies, plays, inventions, political campaigns, cabaret shows, etc. … and no one minds or thinks them any the less “legitimate.” What's with book publishing?

The one thing you need to do this is…money. No doubt about it. Also control. Also keep your rights. All of them. However you can do that. So, if you can, I say go to it. If you can't, don't. In other words, traditional publishing is the poor sap's way out, right? Let's get that rumor started!!!

I think if any “traditionally” published (and actually “traditional” publishing is self publishing) author would have his or her druthers, they'd keep their rights and everything else, not succumb to an editor who has a distorted view of what a success might mean (for the house, not the author) and a lack of control over many important aspects pertaining to the book.

There are projects of mine that I think are good for a “traditional” book publishing route – frankly, I think there's money to be made that way. But I also have projects that I know are not currently marketable by any but very small companies that just keep closing down or saying, “We love it but we can't.” If you can put the money forth for printing and for marketing and learn from mistakes (yours and others) … why the heck not? We live in a time where we can have a choice.