THE Group for Authors! discussion

Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
12/29/2016 12:17 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago

By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

As a published author, people often ask me why I don’t self-publish. “Surely you’d make more money if you got to keep most of the profits rather than the publisher,” they say.

I’d rather share a cabin on a Disney cruise with Donald Trump than self-publish.

To get a book published in the traditional way, and for people to actually respect it and want to read it — you have to go through the gatekeepers of agents, publishers, editors, national and international reviewers. These gatekeepers are assessing whether or not your work is any good. Readers expect books to have passed through all the gates, to be vetted by professionals. This system doesn’t always work out perfectly, but it’s the best system we have.

Good writers only become good because they’ve undertaken an apprenticeship. The craft of writing is a life’s work. It takes at least a decade to become a decent writer, tens of thousands of hours. Your favorite authors might have spent years writing works that were rejected. But if a writer is serious about her craft, she’ll keep working at it, year after year. At the end of her self-imposed apprenticeship, she’ll be relieved that her first works were rejected because only now can she see how bad they were.

Did you ever hear what Margaret Atwood said at a party to a brain surgeon? When the brain surgeon found out what she did for a living, he said, “Oh, you’re a writer! When I retire I’m going to write a book.” Margaret Atwood said, “Great! When I retire I’m going to be a brain surgeon!”

The irony is that now that brain surgeon really could dash off a “book” in a of couple months, click “publish” on amazon, and he’s off signing books at the bookstore. Just like Margaret Atwood, he’s a “published” author. Who cares if his book is something that his grade nine teacher might have wanted to crumple into the trash? It’s a “published” book.

The problem with self-publishing is that it requires zero gatekeepers. From what I’ve seen of it, self-publishing is an insult to the written word, the craft of writing, and the tradition of literature. As an editor, I’ve tackled trying to edit the very worst writing that people plan on self-publishing just because they can.

I’m a horrible singer. But I like singing so let’s say I decide to take some singing lessons. A month later I go to my neighbor’s basement because he has recording equipment. I screech into his microphone and he cuts me a CD. I hire a designer to make a stylish CD cover. Voilà. I have a CD and am now just like all the other musicians with CDs.

Except I’m not. Everyone knows I’m a tuneless clod but something about that CD validates me as a musician. It’s the same with writers who self-publish. Literally anyone can do it, including a seven-year-old I know who is a “published” author because her teacher got the entire class to write stories and publish them on Amazon. It’s cute, but when adults do it, maybe not so cute. With the firestorm of self-published books unleashed on the world, I fear that writing itself is becoming devalued.

I have nothing against people who want to self-publish, especially if they’re elderly. Perhaps they want to write their life story and have no time to learn how to write well enough to be published traditionally. It makes a great gift for their grandchildren. But self-publishing needs to be labelled as such. The only similarity between published and self-published books is they each have words on pages inside a cover. The similarities end there. And every single self-published book I’ve tried to read has shown me exactly why the person had to resort to self-publishing. These people haven’t taken the decade, or in many cases even six months, to learn the very basics of writing, such as ‘show, don’t tell,’ or how to create a scene, or that clichés not only kill writing but bludgeon it with a sledgehammer. Sometimes they don’t even know grammar.

Author Brad Thor agrees: “The important role that publishers fill is to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract.”

Author Sue Grafton said, “To me, it seems disrespectful...that a ‘wannabe’ assumes it’s all so easy and s/he can put out a ‘published novel’ without bothering to read, study, or do the research. ... Self-publishing is a short cut and I don’t believe in short cuts when it comes to the arts. I compare self-publishing to a student managing to conquer Five Easy Pieces on the piano and then wondering if s/he’s ready to be booked into Carnegie Hall.”

Writing is hard work, but the act of writing can also be thrilling, enriching your life beyond reason when you know you’re finally nailing a certain feeling with the perfect verb. It might take a long time to find that perfect verb. But that’s how art works. Writing is an art deserving our esteem. It shouldn’t be something that you can take up as a hobby one afternoon and a month later, key in your credit card number to CreateSpace or Kindle Direct Publishing before sitting back waiting for a stack of books to arrive at your door.

Let’s all give the written word the respect it deserves.

Thoughts on Ms. Gough's Huffington Post Article?

Thanks for bringing up this writer's opinion.

(BTW, here's the URL to the aforementioned article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-...)

People can talk all they want about the "respect" that writers get from running the gauntlet of agents and publishers, but at the end of the day, you need to do whatever you can to put food on the table. Now that's what I call respect. Writing is a business much like any other kind of art that's for sale. Sure, I wouldn't mind getting a truly sweet trad publishing deal--the devil's in the details, though, now isn't it?--but then again I could also try my hand at making the bucks through self-publishing; that is to say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. So, here, let the numbers speak for themselves in the May 2016 report on authorearnings.com that analyzed 1 million titles on amazon:

"1,340 authors are earning $100,000/year or more from Amazon sales. But half of them are indies and Amazon-imprint authors. The majority of the remainder? They come from traditional publishing’s longest-tenured “old guard. [like Sue Grafton]”

Fewer than 115 Big Five-published authors and 45 small- or medium-publisher authors who debuted in the past five years are currently earning $100K/year from Amazon sales. Among indie authors of the same tenure, more than 425 of them are now at a six-figure run rate."
(http://authorearnings.com/report/may-...)
Note: My addition in brackets.

I see both sides of the argument.

Writing is difficult and it should be taken as an art form that deserves respect. Yet, the disruption of the traditional route to publish has shown that there are many gems that are being left out of the traditional route for many reasons, mostly its inefficiency on getting through the amount of work that's being submitted and it's quite subjective nature of vetting the authors submitting the work.

Case and point? J.K. Rowling's experiment under a different pen-name after she was famous. She was rejected by almost 30 publishers if I'm not mistaken. How well did that book do? Almost as well as her Harry Potter series ;) ok, her name was revealed which helped sell the books, but even her writing was dismissed!!!

In fact, I submitted, got accepted and almost got published by a small publisher. Why was I told they can't publish my work? Simply because of the genre! Their umbrella company wasn't accepting of any books that are in any way lgbt affiliated (the issue apparently went all the way to the board of directors). Can you imagine being called in to a meeting, thinking you've made it since they sounded excited over the phone then once you're there being told that they called you in as a sign of respect for your work and to implore you not to stop writing?? That's exactly what the editors said: please don't stop, this is just the start!

Can you imagine if NETFLIX didn't produce its own content? They're producing arguable some of the best shows on TV and they started as an independent disruptive force to TV media. KDP is similar, and is producing some incredible writers! How about all those YouTubers? They are producing content all the time. The views end up showing if they're good or not.

At the end of the day, it's the work that matters. The bad writers will not sell no matter how much marketing they pump into their work. We, the readers, will vote with our rating and opinions. Alex is correct, writing is a business and the facts and numbers show that indie authors are gaining traction. A lot of indie books are also becoming top selling movies!

Ok, I've go on too long. Obviously this issue hits home :P

sounds like her royalties are suffering...

its a nice article written from the perspective of someone who has made it, and is sick and tired of these little peasants chipping away at her thunder. it's so wonderful of her to bless the elderly with self publication, and I await her glorious touch to cure me of my many ridiculously shaped warts :D

I can agree with a lot of what she says but for the fact that there are a lot of trad published books which are not 'good'. I use her word as she seems to think that only 'good' books get through the gatekeepers. Publishers need to make money and they seem to me to have let standards slip in order to make as much money as possible. Surely we all know of books, supposedly written by some so-called celebrity which makes it high in the charts but will never stand the test of time. And that is just one example. Some are definitely not 'good' - they are money-makers.

On the other hand, she has a point. We probably have all come across badly edited books by Indies who have little grasp of grammar and even spelling (despite our computers doing most of that for us). Some are good story-tellers - some are not even that.

She says: "the act of writing can also be thrilling, enriching your life beyond reason when you know you’re finally nailing a certain feeling with the perfect verb. It might take a long time to find that perfect verb. But that’s how art works." Personally I resent her apparently thinking this applies only to trad published authors. I can assure her that I feel exactly that and it takes me over two years to complete a book. I am comfortable with being a hobby writer. The writing drives me, not the agent or publisher.

Because she has only given one side of the argument and failed to point out the real reason publishers are in business (they have to make money or they cannot continue), I feel she has missed an opportunity to write a good article.

I found her article very offensive. Yes, I have read truly awful self-published books, and I do resent what the badly plotted, poorly crafted, unedited indies are doing to the rest of us who are serious writers, who do hire editors, and whose books were rejected by publishing houses because said houses were too hide-bound to take risks. I am one of those authors who tried to get traditionally published and was rejected simply because of the genre. I have a book set in ancient Israel, and Berkeley told my agent to try a small press who might be able to find a marketing strategy, and that once an advertising plan was in place, they then would buy the rights. They weren't comfortable taking on a book that did not fit into one of their predetermined slots!

For that, I get told my work is something a ninth-grader would throw in the trash?

Matt wrote: "Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
12/29/2016 12:17 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago

By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

As ..."

I hope that Ms. Gough, having lifted this great weight from her chest, is feeling a little better now. It’s a rather self-indulgent and self-important piece . . . from someone who seems to be railing at people she sees as . . . self-indulgent and self-important. I assume she did a college apprenticeship at the law firm of Outraged, Fearful, and Pompous, LLC.

I’m an arrogant person, an elitist when it comes to writing, and (I am told) painfully and obviously judgmental, even when I’m trying not to be. I’ll see and raise Gough’s bid that most Indie work is awful; so is most traditionally published work.

So what?

Doing the kind of Kindle-Pub that I do, I am certainly negatively impacted by the flooding of the Indie market: all that “noise in the channel” both lowers standards and makes it difficult for people to sift through and find quality work.

So what?

The core hypocrisy of people like Gough, IMHO, is that they filter and define “markets” in ways that advantage *them* and exclude others. This is basically a “Guild” mentality.

If I am denied medical insurance, I don’t simply shrug and accept the fact that the “considered and professional opinion” of the market seems to be that I should just crawl off and die. I go find another market.

Artistic/Literary doom-saying (These kids today! & Those newfangled ideas!) is nothing new.

At the dawn of recorded writing, the Ancient Greeks railed against the heretical concept that one could use this new technology to put ideas before people without being in their direct presence.

How could you really convince, if you weren’t there? How could the veracity of your statements be assessed? Who would be interested in such a hollow and obviously fraudulent approach to communication?

Mark My Words, spake the Great Sages & Philosophers: This Fad Will Fade!

And, hey! You kids! Get off my lawn!

JZ

Matt wrote: "Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
12/29/2016 12:17 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago

By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

As ..."

Alex G wrote: "Thanks for bringing up this writer's opinion.

(BTW, here's the URL to the aforementioned article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-...)

People can..."

Thanks for posting the numbers. Stats really help.

Yes, thanks for that, Alex. I love stats! I make decisions on stats...

For years, the so called gatekeepers have prevented me from reading what I most enjoy. Before I bought an eReader, I had practically stopped reading because, well let's face it, gatekeepers only accept what fits in the genre. After a while, everything seems to blend. Now with Indies, I don't struggle to find something original anymore.

Also, a lot of Indies just forgo the traditional way entirely and publish. Some of the books I've read could easily rival with the most popular authors. Trad pub didn't reject them, they didn't get the chance to see their work.

I will refrain to say anything about Miss Gough and her article. She is entitled to her opinion as I am entitled to mine; however, her outburst makes me wonder why she is so afraid of Indies. Have her sales gone down since the writing world has opened up to more creative minds?

Well said, G.G. I dislike formulaic books. If I can guess the outcome, and the writing is mediocre, then there isn't much point in reading the book. I can understand those who do like their books to follow tramlines, there's a sort of comfort and escapism in that, but for me, I like originality and I jump for joy when a reviewer says that about mine.

I agree with many here that Gough's paintbrush denigration of the quality of self-published authors' work is considerably lopsided.

I don't disagree with her that much self-published work should be far better written and edited than it is, many times because the author is impatient to get his or her word out into the world. That is a mistake. I have fallen subject to this temptation before, fortunately not on a novel-length work, and have made the effort to avoid the pitfall since then. If it's worth writing, it's worth writing well, to put one's best work forward, to earn respect for one's writing by respecting our readers and fellow writers. It is the author's responsibility to do this, and unfortunately, some do not.

I do strongly disagree that no self-published work is worth a reader's attention. I have bought well over three dozen works in the past couple of years by local authors, most of which are self-published or indie-published, and most are masterfully developed and written. I would love to see them gain national, "traditional" attention.

Also in recent years, I have read a lot of traditionally published books that were abysmally edited, if at all, and I see the trend worsening. A publishing house's products are only as good as the editors working there.

In either case, is it the author's fault, the editor's fault, the publisher's fault? The fault of all three?

I'm not about to paint anybody with a broad brush. I hope that Gough will reconsider the breadth of her brush - she's missing out on some damned fine work.

Matt wrote: "Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

"...If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract."

Not when there are thousands of manuscripts in slush piles vying to be one of that paltry dozen or so selected manuscripts published by any given publishing house. Just because it's a good story does not mean it will be chosen, even if an author is lucky enough to land an agent to represent it.

My least favorite (at this point no longer new) part of the literary landscape is the prevalence of "the California 'No.'"

You put together complicated and ridiculous "custom cut" submission packages and 19/20 agents (and 21/20 editors) just never answer you.

Eventually, you get the msg and go off to cry in a corner. I don't *mind* rejection; rejection is at least clarity.

When people can't even be bothered to tell you to go away? That's not an efficient meritocratic machine (or business): that's a badly broken system.

JZ

Hopefully this doesn't discourage anyone from self-publishing. Natural talent can't be taught. Imo, whether it takes you seven days or seven years to write a book, if you want to publish it, don't listen to the naysayers. Go for it :).

It could be that some self-published authors might be quite good. I have six self-published books. That has led to the opportunity of having another book published by the traditional route, gatekeepers and all. It is easy to dismiss self-publishing but it is now the way of the world. As an aside all my other books are equally as good as the has been accepted for traditional publication. Maybe we need better gatekeepers!

Maybe the book publishing business is just learning what the music industry has learned the hard way. In a digital age it's increasingly an open playing field. It all depends if you still believe the cream rises to the surface. It's not really much a matter of respecting the readers, for most of them are very aware this is the age of DIY. It's a matter of the old guard and old palaces coming to terms with modern technology. This article had some good points, but it also sounded a little like a rant against the inevitability of change: the age of impenetrable publishing companies and pompous writers as elite stars is long over. But there is still no substitute for talent and professionalism in this game, so the self-published writer must never compromise on quality; in face, he or she needs to insist on the highest of standards humanly possible in order to be competitive.

Steven wrote: "Maybe the book publishing business is just learning what the music industry has learned the hard way. In a digital age it's increasingly an open playing field. It all depends if you still believe the cream rises to the surface. It's not really much a matter of respecting the readers, for most of them are very aware this is the age of DIY. It's a matter of the old guard and old palaces coming to terms with modern technology. This article had some good points, but it also sounded a little like a rant against the inevitability of change: the age of impenetrable publishing companies and pompous writers as elite stars is long over."

yes, you hit the nail on the head! the attitude and underlying roots of the article are a bit reactionary. kind of like burying one's head in the sand.

to be honest back in 95 i had a contract with a publishing house for an exclusive. thought i was set, life was good. they bucked the contract, held me in suspension for a year while they frigged around and then sent the manuscript back to me unread. during the meantime life moved on and i no longer had the time to pursue writing. its taken me 20 years to actually get my life back on track to begin writing again.
frankly i like self publishing. that means that the only thing between you and success is how far you 'll push yourself to succeed

Jim wrote: "to be honest back in 95 i had a contract with a publishing house for an exclusive. thought i was set, life was good. they bucked the contract, held me in suspension for a year while they frigged ar..."

Agreed Jim, I hate gatekeepers. I believe there should be "standards", but don't tell me I CAN'T do something or I'm not "good enough": Improvise, Adapt, Overcome...lol

The trouble is, the "gatekeepers" don't just filter for quality, but for content as well. This can include political leanings, current views on sexuality, or even simply what is acceptably funny.

True, the publishers have to watch their own bottom line, but that is all the more reason for Indies.

Agreed Jim, I hate gatekeepers. I believe there should be "standards", but don't tell me I CAN'T do something or I'm not "good enough": Improvise, Adapt, Overcome...lol

pretty much. just imagine where we'd be today if people hadn't pushed the envelope. :)

Ugh. Laurie Gough is really, really out of touch with the industry. Even a lot of trad published authors are going indie these days. They all know at least one colleague who is doing so.

And she obviously hasn't met or talked to any professional indie authors. She's comparing the amateurs in self-pub to the pros in trad. A pro indie author will hire an editor, and create high quality novels.

the same thing happened when web comics broke out. the general consensus came down that this was a good way to play a bunch of videogames, write comics about playing video games and make enough money to buy more games. and so theres a glut of comics out there that last six months or a a year and then people give up because they haven't gotten what they wanted. meanwhile there are some people out there like howard taylor and the guys from penny arcade, who have shown talent increases over the years and are making a decent living off comics that were turned down by big syndicates.

The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not (and arguably we are the older generations here hehe) the world has changed and will continue changing. I feel I'm late to enter the game and I'm in my early 30s! The world today is fast and becoming more indie by the day. Comics (just mentioned above), series or one can loosely say tele-novellas (YouTube mostly), short movies (Youtube now), I'm sure movies soon (Netflix, yeah yeah they are huge but they're releasing cinematic movies now too), art (look at Society6 and the like)... the world has changed. Simple as that. Adapt or die!!

Also, as for us, yeah print might be "dead" but not the written word! People are turning back to books and digital books. If they weren't the Kindle/e-reader would be dead not books.

Long live the indie author! Both quality and quantity writers ;)

At the risk of dating myself here let me tell you the story of the boy who wrote songs and came to Hollywood to "make it" as a songwriter. There was a time long ago when the boy could go door to door to music publishers and ask "Would you please listen to my song demos? " or he could mail his demos in to a publisher or even a record company and have a shot at his songs being listened to.
Then the music publishers and record companies realized that they were spending waaay too much time listening to a whole lot of very unprofessional demos and truly terrible songs, so they closed their doors and hung out a sign that said "You must be referred to us by a music industry attorney. We no longer listen to unsolicited material."
The years passed and the record labels eventually decided even that was not quite enough as some lawyers can be paid off by deep-pocketed songwriters so they said, "A-ha! We will just have our own exclusive teams of in-house songwriters; we don't need those outside songwriters or independent music publishers or their songs much anymore at all", so they became even MORE fortress-like.
Hopefully the book publishing business isn't exactly the same, but the ports of entry keep shrinking and the "gatekeepers" just keep getting more exclusive and weary of being inundated by really bad material as the years pass. And why? Partially because of people who thought having a "dream" was enough and simply felt they could pitch poorly presented, raggedly amateurish work to the buying public and they would buy it against all odds. This is what this woman is talking about in her article, and to at least some extent she is right: if self-published authors do not offer well-written, high quality, professional level books the crappy apples will negatively affect the whole apple barrel.
There is no substitute for good grammar, good spelling, plot and character development, and the basics of creating a good book. Self-published writers can't afford to be lazy about their work or people will assume that self-published books suck, so we do have to reach high and not skimp on the basics of professional presentation. Write on, but do your best not to compromise on the traditions you yourself would expect of a good book.
It's great to have a dream, but dress it for success, don't send it out on stage in rags. Believe me, I understand it's a lot of work.

I agree with points from both sides. However, because of the subjectivity, and my personality, I choose the independent route to continue the story lines I've started that connect to an ever-changing fictional universe, that will continue to develop the way I SEE FIT, and nobody else...unless I wish to let them influence it. After all, I am the creator. I think it is related to an author's goals, and what the author knows at the time. The combination of the two can pretty much tell you exactly where they stand on the issue.

If I am a perfectionist, and I have been writing my whole life, and I care more about the integrity of written language, and grammar, and procedure, and the way things have always been done, then of course I would be a traditionalist. Traditionalists would naturally be more comfortable with being patient until the work fits that specific mold. Their work may even fit right into the mold early on because they are so familiar with exactly what the 'elite' are looking for. Kudos for them, and I hold nothing against them. I respect it, especially if hard work is evident.

However, I am of the sort that has always appreciated "What you see is what you get." I like to see something genuine, and at the same time, I believe that just like any other craft, the more someone practices that craft, the more they improve - and even become a master. I am also stubborn, and very set in my ways. I am the type of person that could care less if someone doesn't like my work, if I know someone else who absolutely loves it. I do want readers to enjoy what I write, but that is what I like about the Amazon Kindle idea; now there is an avenue to see everything out there. There is a way to watch writers progress. And there is a way for the invisible 'little guy' to make it...even if it takes them a while. The problem is when you try to hem someone in to a little box, and say 'you must do this this way', and 'no - it MUST be exactly like this!' This is perceived to some as a form of control, and while control in moderation is good, if it seems control is denying freedom to various personalities, THEY WILL BUCK THE SYSTEM. It is inevitable in politics; it is inevitable in theology, and it is inevitable in mankind. Some can read this last statement and think that it is complete coincidence that this can be found in so many areas of mankind. I am not one of those people.

And finally, I think the most important part of the whole debate is the motivating factor behind the author. Why does the author write? Why do they want to write? What is the purpose? If the answer is they just want to make a living at it, and they think they already know enough to do so, perhaps trying until they fit into the traditional path is the way to go. But if they are like me, and they want to send out a message, that will be received well by some, but rejected by others, then I think for sanity's sake, they should be an indie. Some may say that the traditional route is the only way to go; I think several Indies have already proven that certainly not to be the case. Once again, I find nothing wrong with traditional publishers and authors. But my satisfaction in my writing will not depend on them as long as I see my writing as serving something more intrinsic. However, I will add this caveat; I think it's important for indies who choose to stay the course with their writing to have a stable form of employment that they find almost as satisfying as the writing itself. This is the position in which I find myself, and although my patience gets tested, I enjoy what I am doing, and I am improving. I also know several people who enjoy my work, and appreciate the message embedded within.

So once again, I see some advantages to both sides. But if you tell me an author's true motivation, a little about their background and belief system, as well as their current level of expertise, I can probably guess where they stand on the issue of Traditional vs Indie. And of course, I could be way off the mark. It really is all about perspective.

Steven wrote: "...dress it for success, don't send it out on stage in rags. Believe me, I understand it's a lot of work..."

Amen to this, Steven. Anything worth having is worth working for, and anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Laurie Gough's article sure got her some attention, didn't it? I'm always disappointed when I pick up a self-published book, plunk down real money, curl up hoping for a great read, only to discover I can't make it past the book's problems.

I want to support other self-published authors as I'd hope they'd support me, but Gough is correct in that too many books go out too early. (Something I'm guilty of myself.)

At the same time, some of us don't WANT to be traditionally published. My first novel was just that -- and it was a nightmare. It's a wonderful little press and it got me in front of reviewers for places like the NY Times Book Review (which gave it a great review) but the process wasn't without its own flaws, which probably damaged the book's possibilities.

When I started my new mystery series, I decided to self-publish. I didn't look for an agent, didn't try to find a traditional publisher -- didn't want them. I want/need to be on my own schedule, write what I want to write (not formulate my plots or characters to fit a certain convention).

If those decisions of mine make my books less appealing, so be it. I'm in this for me, not to impress someone, not to rake in boo-koo bucks. Not that traditional publishing does any of that, by virtue of its business model (which is all it is), any way.

Matt wrote: "Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
12/29/2016 12:17 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago

By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

As ..."
The first fallacy here, is that Ms. Gough ASSuMEs that the only people who have the training to be in a publishing house are already in a publishing house. She completely dismisses the possibility that someone might come to the ability to take a manuscript to printed book outside of being employed by a publishing house. Not only are many of today's authors fully capable publishers, but many of the tasks traditionally
handled by the publisher (marketing, for example) have fallen on the author, even with a traditional publishing house. On top of this, to save costs (even more than cutting author royalties and leaving the author to do their own marketing), unproven authors will often get handed to college intern "assistant" editors that quite often have LESS knowledge of crafting a book than the author. I've heard multiple stories of "professionals" going at a manuscript and leaving an unreadable mess in their wake.

Which leads me to her second fallacy, using the ability to get through the various gatekeepers as a measure of the quality of the work. In this, I would argue, the ability to network and get your name in the door ahead of your book has a greater impact on your acceptance than the quality of your writing. Why else do celebrities' memoirs fetch six/seven-figure advances before a single word has been set to the page, while manuscripts such as Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance chock up over 100 rejections before finding a house, and Leaves of Grass (just to show you this isn't a "digital age" problem) end up being self-published?

I heard they did a study once to try and figure out how to predict which books would be successful. Various formulas and models were tried. The most successful? An editor's gut feeling. Which is something you can't measure or test in advance.

Has anyone ever heard of Traveler's tales, the publishing company she's using?

G.G. wrote: "Has anyone ever heard of Traveler's tales, the publishing company she's using?"

Nope. Quick google says it was founded in 1993 and publishes (big surprise) travel books. In their own words: "Reading each book would be like sitting in a cafe filled with fellow travelers swapping tales about the place you’re headed next – you come out changed, and eager for more."

In other words, a very "niche" publishing house.

So in other words, she doesn't have much room to talk...

To be fair, they've only published one of her books (which was originally published in 1999) along with some travel anthologies that she's participated in. She's also been published by Penguin Canada and others.

Her most recent book was published by Dundurn, a Canadian press that's been around for a while.

While I completely disagree with just about everything she says, she has at least had experience with publishing houses of various sizes.

Ok... It seems like I may have clicked the same book every time I checked then. Oops.

Thanks for the clarifications, Christa.

Abby wrote: "... And she obviously hasn't met or talked to any professional indie authors. She's comparing the amateurs in self-pub to the pros in trad. A pro indie author will hire an editor, and create high quality novels."

Exactly. She thinks that just because we choose to skip the gatekeepers means we our work can't get past a gatekeeper.

Also, it sounds as if she thinks no indie authors see writing as a real profession. We hone our craft, do the research, take years to make write better and better, belong to writers' groups, and learn more about marketing that she probably ever has.

I have spent 8 1/2 years on my trilogy. Was it terrible at first? Yes. But I didn't publish it until I knew it was good. The next series I write will be even better. I know I'm a professional, and it's sad that some trad authors will never see me that way.

This is simply amusing. It's like a racist from 19th century bickering about blacks taking over the world in 21st century :D

Denae wrote: "I know I'm a professional, and it's sad that some trad authors will never see me that way..."

You've already figured out how not to be defined by others. Kudos. Keep writing, keep honing, keep learning - you can't have a better writing mantra than that, no matter your level of writing expertise.

I'm not a professional writer by any measure or standard, but I have rejoiced in written-word play all my life and have no plans to stop now. I have one (self-edited and) self-published book under my belt and have received only praise at the quality of the writing, including those comments from English teachers. And I learn every day from other writers, some of them just beginning in the craft - that's one thing I love about the sharing of concepts and perspectives. I'm using a lot of these concepts and perspectives to inform Novel #2, which I hope to have in print this spring.

Michal wrote: "This is simply amusing. It's like a racist from 19th century bickering about blacks taking over the world in 21st century :D"
As an aside, related to your racism point, I've always wondered: if blacks were/are so inferior, why were/are whites so afraid of them? Could it possibly be that blacks weren't/aren't inferior? Heavens! What a concept!

Back to the topic at hand... Perhaps Ms. Gough is afraid of us, although she needn't be. It's far less a competition than some folks make it out to be. Personally, I'm writing because the stories pester me to do so. If I get rich and famous from their publication, that's icing on the cake.

Some decent points are made in the article about the quality of writing, but something I love about reading Indie work is the out-of-the-box format; fresh and original. One of my choices to self-publish was to be uninhibited by the standard format prevalent in the industry. As a writer of contemporary romance, (six-part series) embedded with conflict, challenges, and intrigue, I'm not really interested in the opinion of a travel writer who's body of work includes memoirs on her experiences as a parent. Although I'm sure her work is excellent (as she professes), I prefer to read more creative and and substantial work.

S.Q. wrote: " One of my choices to self-publish was to be uninhibited by the standard format prevalent in the industry."

Funny you should mention that. Although I self-publish mostly for the time saved of pitching my books to a publishing house, many of my books leave me frustrated about the limitations of self-publishing, especially ebooks. While traditional houses have die-cut books for particular shapes, I had a hard time finding a publisher that would take a non-standard trim size (My 30 Ways to Weave a Potholder was deliberately sized to fit inside a standard potholder loom, which I considered significant to its marketability.), and I'm still irritated that I can't find any PoD that will do the classic mass-market "pocket" book size--I personally see most "trade-sized" paperbacks as a combination of the worst attributes of paperback and hardcover; they simply refuse to print smaller than 5"x8". It's even worse with ebooks: sometimes underline and italic and bold simply don't provide enough variety for all the different ways you have to use a word, but whereas in print I could use another font (and the angle brackets, which I can't type to show you because they are restricted for html coding in electric formats) to create more ways to say the word, the "convenience" of allowing the reader to choose their own font wipes out the ability to utilize multiple fonts to distinguish among different uses of a word. More commonly, I have sidebars and captions that get confusingly mixed in to the main text when I try to convert them to ebook (like in my Making a Mosaic of Your County Fair, which is still not available as an ebook because of them).

(Yes, I hear Amazon's got a new "fixed format" app that's supposed to help with these kinds of books, but it's not compatible with XP, and I have neither the money for a new machine nor the liking for what MicroSoft has been doing with Windows since XP.)

Matt wrote: "Self-Publishing: An Insult To The Written Word
12/29/2016 12:17 pm ET | Updated 3 days ago

By Laurie Gough
Award-winning author of three memoirs, she is also a journalist and travel writer.

As ..."

Here is an encouraging blog post you might be interested in reading, Laurie.
https://alisonwilliamswriting.wordpre...

RE Alison Williams' blog post..."
A well done post - thanks for sharing it with us, Jill. Besides the good writing-bad writing issue, some of us aren't young enough to wait for the 2 or 3 years it takes to get one book into print through the traditional publishing house, were we to garner a good deal. I'm not ancient, but some writers are, and they have good stories to share, some of them important.

A WWII veteran, who honored me by calling me 'friend,' wrote his life story, focusing on his experience as a Marine on Okinawa and other war sites in the Pacific. Through self-publishing, he got it into print four months before he died at age 91. He sent me a copy, which I am delighted to have. When I read it, I found that it is not great literature, but it doesn't have to be. (It is decently edited...) The heart and spirit of this man in telling HIS story shines like a beacon throughout the book. While reading it, I felt the same way I did when I sat at his kitchen table listening to him tell his adventures and share his philosophy over a cup of coffee. I cherish that book above many others on my shelf, and I now carry copies of that book at my table when I exhibit at book shows.

Sally wrote: "RE Alison Williams' blog post..."
A well done post - thanks for sharing it with us, Jill. Besides the good writing-bad writing issue, some of us aren't young enough to wait for the 2 or 3 years it ..."

Thanks for sharing Sally...sounds like a good read (unintended pun)
My son and I are working on a novel about a WWII hero, who doesn't consider himself a hero. Though a work of fiction, we are basing the character on my grandfather, and Jay's great grandfather. I just wish I could still pick from the man's brain myself. I think it a blessing you are now able to read straight from a veteran's thoughts, from the 'Greatest generation'.

Sally wrote: "RE Alison Williams' blog post..."
A well done post - thanks for sharing it with us, Jill. Besides the good writing-bad writing issue, some of us aren't young enough to wait for the 2 or 3 years it ..."

Your friend's book about his personal experiences in WWII is an invaluable source of history, Sally. It's the kind of item that our Australian War Memorial, here in Canberra, collects.

Sally wrote: "RE Alison Williams' blog post..."
A well done post - thanks for sharing it with us, Jill. Besides the good writing-bad writing issue, some of us aren't young enough to wait for the 2 or 3 years it ..."

A personal, first-hand account and perspective of war is invaluable. It is imperative that the younger generation, whose concept of war is often influenced by video games that emphasize super human feats of strength and aggressiveness, be made to understand that when the last shot is fired, the peace treaties are signed, and the war is officially declared over, regardless on which side one fought, there are no winners, only survivors.

Hi Jim,
As a veteran, I totally agree with you. The video games' concept of war is win-win. As you point out, that's not the facts. War is history. It has developed weaponry, advanced medicine, and even had the guts to teach some of us. It's still tough to deal with. Yes, only the survivors make it.

I'm kind of neutral on originality. If it's poorly written or badly executed, "it's so original" doesn't cut any ice with me. But that's true whether it's self-published or trad.

I'd also debate the assumption of several posters that gatekeepers make everything formulaic and predictable in trad publishing. As a reader (who I freely admit enjoys some formula stuff) I have no trouble finding off-the-wall books that got past the gatekeepers.

Fraser wrote: "I'd also debate the assumption of several posters that gatekeepers make everything formulaic and predictable in trad publishing. As a reader (who I freely admit enjoys some formula stuff) I have no..."

There's always some newly-hired assistant editor that will take a chance with something "different." How else are they going to make a name for themselves if they only take copycats of their bosses' stable?