Interesting article on SF&F publishing

http://authorearnings.com/sfwa2018/

lots of interesting graphs comparing traditonal publishing vs indie for SF&F

ericth wrote:http://authorearnings.com/sfwa2018/

lots of interesting graphs comparing traditonal publishing vs indie for SF&F

I remember arguing with a well known author a decade ago about the ability to go direct via amazon vs the approach where his agent meets the publisher and the two of them decide what he will write for the next few years. There is still a lot of emotional/ego baggage tied up in the idea of being a "real author".

Plus I'm told that Amazon pays every month, on time precisely as much money as the author has earned. Which I'm also told is something that you cannot depend upon in traditional publishing.

kzt wrote:

ericth wrote:http://authorearnings.com/sfwa2018/

lots of interesting graphs comparing traditonal publishing vs indie for SF&F

I remember arguing with a well known author a decade ago about the ability to go direct via amazon vs the approach where his agent meets the publisher and the two of them decide what he will write for the next few years. There is still a lot of emotional/ego baggage tied up in the idea of being a "real author".

Plus I'm told that Amazon pays every month, on time precisely as much money as the author has earned. Which I'm also told is something that you cannot depend upon in traditional publishing.

Personally, I'm not too hung up on being a 'real author.' I've got published books, which (at least in my own mind, which is where it matters) qualifies me. But what I can say is that one publisher pays every month, whether it's hundreds of dollars or pennies, regular as clockwork. The other ... doesn't. True, the contract only calls for yearly accounting and payments, but it the first such accounting only came fourteen months after the first due date rolled around - and I still haven't seen all of the sales figures, which calls the amount into question.

I also have to question the value of the editing I get, since most of the suggestions are wrong and make what I've written worse, not better.

But I'll stick with publishers. I'm too old to try taking on everything involved with self-publishing.

kzt wrote:

ericth wrote:http://authorearnings.com/sfwa2018/

lots of interesting graphs comparing traditonal publishing vs indie for SF&F

I remember arguing with a well known author a decade ago about the ability to go direct via amazon vs the approach where his agent meets the publisher and the two of them decide what he will write for the next few years. There is still a lot of emotional/ego baggage tied up in the idea of being a "real author".

Plus I'm told that Amazon pays every month, on time precisely as much money as the author has earned. Which I'm also told is something that you cannot depend upon in traditional publishing.

AJKohler wrote:Personally, I'm not too hung up on being a 'real author.' I've got published books, which (at least in my own mind, which is where it matters) qualifies me. But what I can say is that one publisher pays every month, whether it's hundreds of dollars or pennies, regular as clockwork. The other ... doesn't. True, the contract only calls for yearly accounting and payments, but it the first such accounting only came fourteen months after the first due date rolled around - and I still haven't seen all of the sales figures, which calls the amount into question.

I also have to question the value of the editing I get, since most of the suggestions are wrong and make what I've written worse, not better.

But I'll stick with publishers. I'm too old to try taking on everything involved with self-publishing.

kzt wrote:There is still a lot of emotional/ego baggage tied up in the idea of being a "real author".

An interesting thought, but is it wholly fair? It may be an ego thing for some authors, it may not. Personally, I'd reserve my vote for the romantic author who might have passionate reasons about wanting to continue to publish mainly in the traditional sense. If digital publishing becomes the norm — easier, cheaper, and much more lucrative — what will that ultimately do to hardbacks and the romance of paper cuts? I had a discussion with a brother of mine about the long-term effects of Amazon on Shopping Malls. My brother warned several of my sisters and friends that Amazon and internet shopping was going to send Malls to the dustbin of history. I thought he was crazy. Now, Sears and J.C Penny, Circuit City, Toys R Us and many other traditionally beloved American chains are closing.

If I were an author, I'd want the legacy of my work to be displayed on people's shelves in their homes. What's wrong with the joy and ego boost of seeing someone's bookshelf stocked with all of your works - the latest sitting open on the coffee table? And the contentment of knowing your kids will see your works in other's homes long after you're gone. Actually see them. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. So you father continues to write even after he is gone. Seeing is believing.

And certainly, what's wrong with continuing to fight the battle against the burning of books, in one form or another.

Interesting link ericth, thanks.

cthia wrote:An interesting thought, but is it wholly fair? It may be an ego thing for some authors, it may not. Personally, I'd reserve my vote for the romantic author who might have passionate reasons about wanting to continue to publish mainly in the traditional sense. If digital publishing becomes the norm. . .easier and much more lucrative, what will that ultimately do to hardbacks and the romance of paper cuts?

Nothing. For those who want them, print-on-demand services are available and willing to go as fancy as you want (of course, I would imagine that a traditional publisher employing traditional book designers, i.e. typesetters and cover artists, can make better "real" books than J Random Author doing all of that work by themselves).

Purely digital publishing is already easier and much more lucrative (on an "author's share per book sold" basis, anyway); the only reason that traditional publishers are still as much of a force as they are is because they offer services that single authors publishing their works by themselves on Amazon have a hard time getting.
Self-publishing has had its success stories (Andy Weir's The Martian, for example), but those are few and far between; in most cases, authors who self-publish, even if they produce truly exceptional work like Linda Nagata, struggle to find an audience. Traditional publishers, with all the PR connections they have and the vested interest they have in getting a return on their investment (which means that the book earns out its advance), have advantages here.

Being a traditionally published author, even taking into account agent provisions, is much more secure an existence than trying to sell your books on Amazon. The advances they pay, even if they never earn out, are a guaranteed return on the author's time investment; compared to the vagaries of being slaved to Amazon's recommendation algorithms, it's much more comfortable and calculable (Of course, this requires that you consistently put out work that's good enough to make the publisher's decision to invest in you worthwhile).

If I were an author, I'd want the legacy of my work to be displayed on people's shelves in their homes. What's wrong with the joy and ego boost of seeing someone's bookshelf stocked with all of your works - the latest sitting open on the coffee table? And the contentment of knowing your kids will see your works in other's homes long after you're gone. Actually see them. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. So you father continues to write even after he is gone. Seeing is believing.

And certainly, what's wrong with continuing to fight the battle against the burning of books, in one form or another.

There is, of course, nothing wrong whatsoever with any of those things.

But it's not what modern readers want. I am, like you, a big fan of a well-stocked bookshelf, and yet, the vast majority of books I've bought over the past few years have been purely electronical.

Reasons for this are varied: ebooks are more portable (I read a lot on trains or public transport, and lugging around a tablet is more comfortable than carrying a hardback everywhere), often cheaper, and for some authors, more lucrative (i.e. buying the ebook means giving the writer more money than buying the same book in paper would). I still buy the occasional soft- or hardcover book, but without exception, these are books that I read electronically first and then decided that I liked them enough to have them in paper as well (because they are books I may want to lend to people, which you can't do with an ebook unless you want to break copyright laws).

there is nothing wrong with traditional books and a lot of popular indy authors are now making hard copies of their early titles available now that they have secured a large enough fanbase.

I'm no writer, and i have heard various horror stories of the process of "proving" your work is yours alone but I've heard a lot of the indy suthors say they were ignored by the traditional publishers and turned to amazon as a last chance only to soar and be approached by publishers that turned them down earlier.

{shrug}

I'm not going to say one way is better then the other, i've had a lot of bad books from indy writers and a lot from established publishers.

where amazon really shines perhaps is simply the chance to put your work out there and let the public, not 1 or 2 people at the publisher decided if your book is worth their time.

Dauntless wrote:where amazon really shines perhaps is simply the chance to put your work out there and let the public, not 1 or 2 people at the publisher decided if your book is worth their time.

If nothing else, Amazon does give you the chance to put your work out there and see if it can gain traction, even after traditional publishers have passed on it.

I will say this though: In my experience, the quality floor for traditionally published works is much higher than for the self-published stuff.

For example, if I see a Baen book, I know that if I am not going to enjoy it, it's more likely due to the content not being to my tastes than due to deficiencies in the author's ability as a storyteller (my goto example is Kratman's "Watch on the Rhine"; on a writing level, it's fine but not in any way exceptional, it just fails hard on a conceptual level)

The big publishing houses select who they want to be a big success and push them. If you are not on their list of favored authors then they don't do anything for you, don't reprint your books, etc. There are interesting horror stories of how this works out there.

Part of that is why people decide to work for Manhattan publishers. It doesn't pay well and you are working in one of the most expensive city in the world. It's not that they want to make big bucks, at least as real potential.

So their personal objective fundamentally isn't to sell books. It's to "be in publishing" and do "good things" which means you select what books you like based on how they appeal to your values.

If you happen to find the values of the typical Manhattanite publisher drone to be uninspiring they tend to not like your books.

Amazon wants to sell books. They want to make money. Everything they do is based on getting people to buy stuff from them. So they will push your book in front of people who seem likely to buy it without worrying about is the message or what they think is the authors political beliefs.

The best advice I was given was to do both. Not that I've written enough to follow it.
Both self publish with a service like Amazon and real publishers.
Not the same works obviously.

The second best advice was from Raymond Feist back in about 1988.

Take the first million words you write, and throw them away. They'll be rubbish.

Of course that was pre internet as we know it.

These days we post them on fanfic sites