Just out of curiosity, I have constructed a new blog poll about self-published authors.
Simple question: When you hear that an author is self-published (whether they use a print-on-demand publisher, do everything themselves, or use a service such as iUniverse, Lulu, Booksurge, etc) do you automatically assume they went with self-publishing because they were rejected by a "real" publisher? Does that mean their book is crap or do even the big guys get it wrong once in a while?
Please feel free to discuss the topic below. This is a subject that has been on my mind for several months now...
9 comments:
Having read plenty of trad-pubbed books that left me saying meh, I've come to believe that authors publish independently for a variety of reasons. I did it because of a health issue we thought might turn out badly. I wanted to leave my novels in published form. Fortunately, I'm still here.
Now I judge books by their content and how much satisfaction they bring me, not by their big-name author or New York publisher status. Some of the best and brightest authors are publishing in non-traditional ways.
Marsha Ward
The Characters in Marsha's Head blog
word ver= comen, we eat
Lunchtime!
Here is a list of self published authors I found on the internet;
Margaret Atwood, L. Frank Baum, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf
So, since some of the most famous authors in history were self published, I really don't think self publishing is a negative thing.
I decided to publish my book POD because it better suits my needs. I don't have the energy or ambition to pursue a Trade House publication deal, and I'm not interested in publishing future books.
Due to the internet and blogs, the world for aspiring authors is broadening, and hopefully readers will be begin to view self published authors as a viable source for well written and entertaining books.
I'm not self-published, but went with a small press. Traditional publishing, particularly large presses, are closing their ranks and doors to new authors, and that's a shame. I have read some marvelous books by self-published authors without ever knowing their reasons for choosing that option.
Now, in fairness, I have also read some hot messes that were self-published and have every one of the stereotypical hallmarks thereof (punctuation abuse, poor copy-editing, etc). I am more concerned about the quality of the work than about how it landed in my hands, truth to tell -- because there are some hot messes out there in the traditional imprints as well (just better edited, LOL).
For my self, I don't think being a self published authors is bad.
I heard of the big companies turning down authors of clean romances because they didn't 'fit in'.
The only thing that gets me is the bad authors that get self published, they tend to give the rest of the self published authors (the good ones) a bad name.
Know what's sad? I self-pubbed The Demo Tapes due to the demand of my readers, and I still clicked "usually."
In my case, yes, the big houses said no way. They said no one wanted to read about men (take that, JK Rowling! JR Ward!). About rock stars. No one wanted to read short stories (although, to be fair, I never queried the Demo Tapes, only the novel they support). And to sell something people can get on my blog for free????
I'm making money. I love having a cult following.
Yet I still chose Usually in your poll. Know why?
I've run across too many books that are poorly written, edited, punctuated -- just books that aren't ready for prime time. Yes, I've read clunkers put out by the major houses, too. My book club is in love with a series that's so badly written, I cringe at the thought of tackling the third book.
The self-publishing stigma is a paradox: it's both deserved in certain cases and yet totally needs to go away in others.
I don't assume that they have been rejected by a traditional publisher, because I am a self-published author and I have never been rejected by a traditional publisher. The main reason for this is that I haven't submitted to a traditional publisher. I couldn't find one that fit my manuscript and me principles. Yes, that makes things tough for me because self-publishing is hard work. But, it is worth it.
I am, however, working up to sending in my first manuscript to a traditional publisher. I have finally written something that I think they will be interested in. :) So, I am expecting to be piling up those rejection letters sometime in my future. :) I am sure I will get my fair share. :)
The ridiculous 'stigma' that is still associated with books that are self-published....is just that: ridiculous.
As stated in previous comments, many of the greatest writers, (current and past) self-published to make their mark in the (sometimes fickle) world of writing.
When it comes to purchasing a self-published book which interests me.....I don't hesitate!
Self-publishing isn't a bad thing. Self-editing--now that's another subject.
Post a Comment