The New York Times Weighs In
I have a friend at work who always says snarky things. I was sitting innocently at the computer, checking my e mail, when she came over and said, “The New York Times had an article about self publishing. Did you see it?”
I said, “Yeah. The publishing world is really changing.” (My way of saying, “It’s not just bullshit. The whole industry is moving in this direction.”)
She replied, “It just said that it’s getting really popular.” (Her way of saying, “Nah. It’s just that a lot of people like to publish their own stuff these days, and losers like you are in good company.” OK. Maybe I’m just a wee bit hypersensitive, but once she asked me if I thought I might be trying to hide myself from the world with my weight.)
My friend was right about the overall message of the article. The New York Times piece began with a bang, and I was hoping that it was going to present a positive picture of Indie Publishing. They highlighted a reader’s comment:
“Many people incorrectly assume that profit is the sole motive for self-publishing. For many writers, creating the work and then sharing it is its own reward.“
This was the most positive part of the article, and it was not written by the author. The rest of the piece went on to say that the publishing industry is struggling because people are reading less. (News to me and my voraciously reading friends.) It does not mention the availability of great indie material that is attracting readers, sick of the repetitive outpourings of bookstores. (Yes, “Harry Potter” was a blockbuster. Now we only publish YA fiction about teenagers with magical powers. Dudes, I like those books a lot, but some variety wouldn’t kill ya.)
The article sites statistics from Author Solutions about how many books they’ve sold, pointing out that the amount of titles aren’t that wonderful considering that
“Author Solutions, for example, sold a total of 2.5 million copies last year. Little, Brown sold more than that many copies of “Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer just in the last two months of 2008“.
The author of this article stated as fact that “the dream of many self-published authors is that they will be discovered by a mainstream publishing house — and it does happen, however rarely”. It went on to talk about the “rare” phenomena of “Still Alice”, an indie book about a woman with Alzheimer’s that the author sold to Pocket Books, after first publishing with iUniverse. This was presented as the Holy Grail of indie publishing.
Then we have the last paragraph:
Diamonds in the rough, though, remain the outliers. “For every thousand titles that get self-published, maybe there’s two that should have been published,” said Cathy Langer, lead buyer for the Tattered Cover bookstores in Denver, who said she had been inundated by requests from self-published authors to sell their books. “People think that just because they’ve written something, there’s a market for it. It’s not true.”
I’m tired of snarky people and snarky articles. Unfortunately, the New York Times is viewed as the creme de la creme of newspapers, and it’s articles are highly regarded, often setting the tone for political and non political agendas in America. I’ve had an ongoing problem with how they represent kids with psychiatric illness – as scary, damaged and hopeless little beings, sucking the life and happiness out of their families. Now I’m going to add annoyance at their portrayal of indie authors – as hopeless writers of non viable books, desperately waiting for the discriminating geniuses of NYC to snap up their probably crappy work..
Disclaimer 1: Remember, folks, this is just my opinion, and does not represent the opinion of this entire website.
Disclaimer 2: I feel cranky, perhaps because of the two martinis I had last night.
Disclaimer 3: I shouldn’t feel cranky, because I also had the yummiest Thai calamari, ever. (Not to mention nice mini lambchops and fried ravioli dipped in spicy sauces.)
Disclaimer 4: Disclaimer 3 made me wonder if I have indigestion. I’m going to go eat a Tums.
zoewinters
Moriah Jovan
R.J. Keller
robinaltman
Evangeline Holland
alanbaxter
The NY Times is on its way out anyway. They just put their share of the Red Sox up for sale (we should go halves, Robin!) to raise some revenue. Maybe soon their columnists and reporters will be hopeless writers desperately waiting for the discriminating geniuses of whatever newspapers remain to snap up their work.
Or maybe not. Only time will tell.
Kel: Which piece of the Sox would we get? I want their faces, not their asses or dirty cleats.
I find it very comforting to think of Motoko (author’s name) waiting to be judged by other newspapers because the NY Times is tanking. Thanks for that image. *sighs with happiness*
If I’m buyin’ a piece of the Red Sox, I get dibs on Jason Varitek. He’s mine.
And you’re welcome.
I read this same article a few days ago, too. I didn’t think it was necessarily negative, but certainly that bit at the end in which Langer estimates that only 0.2% of self-published books should have been written is a ridiculous, and frankly insulting, number.
And you know, in my experience, there have been quite a few books published by the big publishers that maybe shouldn’t have been written either.
I don’t think it’s too out of line, though, to assume that many, if not most, self-publishers do want to be “discovered” by a big publishing house and receive all of the fame and fortune that comes with it. As Ara13 demonstrated a few days ago, it is a goal for those authors who are trying to earn a living through writing.
@rjkeller: That’s a good point about the NY Times impending financial collapse. My bold prediction is that within 5 years, newspapers, as we know them now, will not exist. They will have shut their doors and gone out of business or they will have moved entirely online — where they’ll have to compete with bloggers and myriad other online sources of news and commentary. We’ll see what the unemployed reporters and columnists think about indie publishing then.
Oh! and speaking of the print vs. electronic versions of the NY Times, I found this article this morning:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle
I thought the article had a negative tone, starting with the headline, “Self-Publishers Flourish as Writers Pay the Tab”
Makes it sound like self publishers are flourishing at the expense of writers. I see the good self pubbers as offering worthwhile, enabling tools to help authors assert their independence.
I’ll admit, I skipped over a lot of the blah blah blah stuff. That friend? Sounds like she’s more of a frenemy. Keep her close. Keep. Her. Close.
Kel: You can have Varitek. I’ll take Clay Buchholz’s nose.
J.M.: I might just be feeling cranky. I agree with the idea that a lot of indie authors are hoping to be discovered by a big publishing house and get a great book deal. Yet, they didn’t present the other side of the issue at all – writers wanting to get their work out to the public, writers who enjoy being in control of the business aspects of their book, etc. It didn’t feel like a balanced view to me.
Another bug up my butt was the quotes that were chosen. The last was the nastiest, but a close second was the self publishing woman who laughed as she talked about all the “bad poetry” she’s seen. It is such a stereotype of “Vanity Presses”. I didn’t get the feeling that the industry was changing. I got the feeling that writers who choose this route are sub par.
Excuse me. I’m going to go kick my dog now.
Mark: I agree about the title! Certainly not flattering to self publishers.
Kia: Hahahaha! She can be a real pain, but she can also be very sweet, but the snarky comments have gotten worse over the years.
Don’t worry. She’s so close I trip over her sometimes. Maybe it’s a case of “familiarity breeds contempt”.
The comments are the most interesting part of the article.
Evangeline: That’s a good point. I just looked it over again. Without the comments, it doesn’t say a hell of a lot. I just wish the comments were more balanced. I think they should have interviewed Zoe! (Seriously. Wouldn’t that have been awesome?)
Mark: “right on” with your comments.
J.M.: someday you will acknowledge that fame and fortune in a bubble is of no value to me. It is the income garnered from being respected as a quality producer that I desire. I will not be content with fame and fortune for producing crap. I know this is difficult to parse, but try. I would rather have a nice following of those whose opinions I respect, voting me “of quality” with their dollar, allowing me to support myself in this endeavor.
Robin: As I was so rightly corrected by Zoe, you have a great point, which I think would make for a great piece. People like me, and the Times’ writers overlook(ed) the desire of self-publishers to be the publishing house as an ends (with profits), and not as a forced position to be a pubilished, creditable writer. I say, write that article. It certainly was a point I needed to hear, and it lacks coverage in the media.
My own gripe: I am not a big fan of the snarky Indie Bookstore owner, who feels no comraderay, will take no chances with, the Indie author. Indie Bookstores simply mean Indie owned; and they peddle the same stuff as the others (usually, with some exceptions, to include some having local shelves). But, it has been my experience that the big bookstores have been more welcoming with book signings than the Indies. I hate that reporters go to them as if they understand the Indie Publishing/Writer’s voice (notice I am now paying respect to both endeavors). They are in a different business.
Us Indies are laying the groundwork for the future of the field. Our grassroots endeavors are the foundation for the future paradigm. We will have a nice leg up; but, perhaps, only for so long. Eventually, big business will assert its weight, and we will have the same gripes as now. But I have hopes for that niche audience that values the same qualities as I (or is it me … EDITOR!).
My biggest beef is that they used the term “self-publisher” for “author services” or some other more specific term. A self-publisher is one who publishes his own work; it is not the company functioning as the conduit between the self-publisher and the finished book.
I don’t understand that, either. As indie bookstores get squeezed out more and more, I would think there’d be some measure of solidarity or even one of specializing (for instance, an indie bookstore that only stocked romance and erotica), and providing what the box stores and chain bookstores won’t.
You are right; and it will happen. You can’t out Wal-Mart Wal-Mart, so to forge a market, the smaller guy needs to out quality a specific niche. The future is the specialist, as these all-encompassing crap factories spread themselves thin like the Roman Empire, and fail. Then, the cycle will start over again. (I will be dead before anyone of you can point out that I was wrong, so I will chance this prediction.)
Ara 13:
You are going to absolutely hate the post I have planned for Monday. I can’t wait!
Well then, at least put your punctuation inside the quotes, as I will be reading your post in America!
Only if you promise to lay off the frequent ad hominem attacks against myself and anyone else with whom you disagree.
And if you promise to adopt some consistency in your ideas and not switch your position on an issue with every comment you make.
Ara: There’s nothing worse than a snotty indie bookstore owner who is unaccommodating to indie authors, except maybe a snotty bookstore owner who is unaccommodating to indie authors, and has really bad breath.
MoJo: In a land where there were specialty bookstores for humorists, I would be a happy camper. I’d make sure there were plenty of gummy worms for all, (right next to the cash register).
JM: If your post is so hot that my computer explodes, you’re in big fat trouble.
JM:
I’m not quite sure about what you are referring to as my inconsistency, unless you count my admitting I was wrong to Zoe about not taking into account Indie Publishing as a business ends; but I’m still not buying the your saintly anti-money stance. Again, you will likely not parse those particulars either. I’d rather admit to being in error on that issue, shore up my logic, than to worry about you not understanding the context. I have faith that the other bloggers understand my point.
My post today agreed with everyone but you.
Ad hominem: You’re right about that from a previous post when I used “academics” as a pejoritive. And you have every right to defend that attack. I don’t see that attack today. In fact, rereading what I wrote initially, it is hard for me to fathom what could be disagreeable.
JM
Making money is not inherently evil. Agree or disagree? It is the means that matters. Agree or disagree?
Robin: My post is gonna rock your world — or at least your blogging world.
Ara: Let’s save the money debate for Monday.
I don’t need to debate those two questions. China and the USSR already hashed it out for me, 50 million times. The fact that you are not growing your own food, building your own shelter, fashioning your own garb, and are instead enjoying the benefits of being a subject-matter expert in academia, afforded that luxary by the concept of currency, has settled the debate for me; even if your use of the time thanks to a money concept has led you to the wrong conclusions. You’d be debating yourself.
I read that article, and I find it a little disturbing that that’s considered the height of journalistic reporting now. And I concur with what someone else said about mostly quotes and not a lot of substance to the article. (Scrolled back, Robin said that.
)
Hey Mark, I love your attitude on this. You’re right, it’s about offering tools and lowered barriers to give people a chance to play the game. There are no guarantees any given person will succeed at this game, but it’s an opportunity to play and find out.
Kia: I agree with your frenemy assessment.
Hey Robin, very few people are going to grasp the small business concept for those of us (meaning me and others like me, not necessarily meaning you because i don’t know how you feel about the issue for yourself) indies who actually *shock gasp* like and want to PUBLISH, not just have our work out there.
It’s going to allude everybody forever as long as they see indie authors as solely authors trying to get their work read, instead of understanding that some people primarily really just want to write, and some people really just want to publish other people, but some people want to write and publish.
It’s just like some mothers also have jobs. But it took decades before people really accepted that a mother could work if she wanted to and it was viable for her to be both a career-woman and a mom. It’ll probably be at least a decade before people accept, that maybe not everybody, but yes, some people really can be writers AND publishers, and are in it for both things.
Ara: “You can’t out walmart walmart” So true!
J.M. I liked the part where Ara admitted he was wrong. I printed it, and framed it, and put it over my desk.
Just kidding, Ara!
I read the NYT article and I while I didn’t think it was terribly against self-publishing, I did think they could have done more to explain the difference between self publishing and vanity publishing. A lot of people seem to think that everyone who self publishes only did it because they couldn’t be bothered to approach a publishing house or couldn’t get their MS past an editor; they imagine every self-published book to be one of those MS somebody’s granny comes up with — like the Christmas Box, perhaps, or The Shack.
One of the finest poets I know is self-published. I’d read his work any day over that of quite a few conventionally published poets. Arguably, all of us who have blogs are self-published, and if I die before I get a book in print, then thank God I had a blog and managed to get a few people reading my efforts — and thank God I found some of the blogs I read on a regular basis that help keep me sane and happy — like yours, Robin.
I couldn’t even sell Girl Scout cookies, so self publishing isn’t for me — but I’m still open to self-published books.
Zoe: Maybe Ara is right, and we should write our own article, or “letter to the editor” and submit it to the NY Times. I think they only accept articles from “on staff” writers.
Mary: That was really cogently said. My interpretation of the article could have been due to a piece of lamb caught in the corner of my duodenum.
I guess I thought the article propagated the stereotypes of self publishing, instead of helping to dispel them. Yet, to be fair, that isn’t the author’s responsibility. Maybe the article was just about prevalence.
I particularly liked the part of your comment where you said you like my blog.
You have a lovely way of looking at blogging. If the NY Times ever does a piece on blogging, I say they interview you.
So what? It’s up to indie authors to keep producing quality work and prove that there is a place for us. There’s no point in railing against articles like this – it gets nowhere. Make your point with action. That’s what I’m doing.
Alan, I feel that way about 85% of the time. Then some days I just can’t help bitching.
Alan: I didn’t mean to rail. It was just something to talk about. You have to grab discussion opportunities as they crop up when you’re repeatedly writing about the same subject.