There are two artists I have discovered online. I go to their blogs regularly and love what they do. One is of course, Diana of Mosaic Moods, who I talk about all the time anyway, and the other is Rowena who paints the flying girl pictures. I don’t know why I love them, but I do.
Both are producing their art and selling it online. This is absolutely wonderful, because otherwise I would never have discovered them, and I have things to put on my “What to buy myself when I have disposable income again” list. They get to earn some money from their art, and have it appreciated by a wider audience. Happy bunny dances all round.
Can you see where I’m going with this?
It seems to me that there is a double standard when it comes to my flavour of art, i.e. writing. I find it hard to call what I do ‘art’ as that seems far too grand a word for it, but I think there is a parallel in that it is the output of my creative endeavour. When we as writers consider finding our own audience and selling our art, i.e. self-publishing, there’s suddenly an uproar of controversy. People at one end of the spectrum declare it to be the beginning of the end for decent writing, believing that the market will be flooded by rubbish and destroy publishing forever. Others say that writers who self-publish are egotistical, vain fools who can’t accept that the agents and publishers who rejected them know best, and should just accept they aren’t good enough and either keep on writing until they are good enough or shut up and go away.
It can get quite passionate, as can be seen on this blog post, one of the lines that particularly stood out was “But do not insult me and other professional writers by considering yourself one of us.”
One of us.
That haunts me. Us creates a them, it suggests an in-group and an out-group – which is something I really should put on that psychology blog I’ll start one day. I’m not mentioning it to respond to the writer, as she says several times, she can rant in her own space and that’s cool by me, I’m simply fascinated by how emotive this topic evidently is for some people.
Yesterday on Twitter I asked people to give me some reasons not to self-publish, and they mostly centred around the cost (too much) and the credibility (not enough). But when I think about my favourite blogging artists, I don’t automatically scoff at them for not having been approved by a grand gallery. I don’t think “Pah, amateurs! How dare they put their work out into the world, what ego-maniacs!” I just think, “Wow, that speaks to me, I love it. I want to buy it.”
Maybe I’m not connected to the art world enough to perceive a similar set of responses – perhaps there are some artists out there who could chip in and let me know.
I know that self-publishing has a bad reputation, but is it something that could be grown out of? I talked about Darryl Sloan a while ago and his book Chion. It’s very enjoyable, well-produced, in fact there is little to tell between it and a traditionally published book. It was cheaper and just as high quality, he did everything right. But for every Chion, I guess there are many self-published books that are poor quality, maybe so many that all are judged harshly.
I am now podcasting my book in the hope that people will enjoy it (chapter two is up now by the way). I haven’t yet come across anyone being upset about podcasting, but maybe it hasn’t taken off enough yet. I’m seriously tempted to self-publish again, but if I do that, I intend to publish the best damn book I can. It will be professionally edited, typeset and produced. Yes, I will have to pay for that, but I hope I would recoup the initial outlay when I sell the book, just like any cottage industry product. It would be a business, but driven by a creative product, rather than a re-sold, manufactured one. Just like those artists I mentioned before. Is it possible that self-publishing could be accepted like that, or will there always be a stigma?
What do you think? Is there a double standard? Is there a genuine reason to scoff at self-publishing, or is this attitude an example of the powerful protecting their monopoly?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi – I don’t think there is really anything to worry about. I have quiet a few books on my shelves that are self published by the artist. And I think no “normal” person cares if a book is self or “professional” published. It’s only other, fellow artists, who indulge in that sort of snobbery. Self published books are fun because nobody Professional has messed around with them and they are 100% the writer and nobody else. Go on, publish and don’t listen to the snobs out there. Us readers love good books no matter where they come from!
Heike X
I think there is absolutely a double standard. The written word is art just as much as a painted canvas. Single color ink instead of paint, paper instead of canvas – creation nonetheless.
The publishing community needs to get over itself. The music industry already has gone through its re-birth and while it looks way different from how it looked twenty years ago, it is still there and there are probably more artist opportunities today than there was back then.
Cheers!
George
Tumblemoose’s last blog post..Is content theft a bad thing?
Well, speaking as someone who practices multiple types of art… there *is* a difference. With visual art, what you see is what you get. You see a painting, you like it, and therefore you buy it.
With a book? You can’t read the entire thing before you buy it, and there are more costs involved than with art – a painting is simply a painting, but books, you need thousands of. That’s why the industry surrounding it is so much bigger, and that’s why we need quality control: so that people, publishers and readers alike, don’t invest money in a poor product.
If I tell people I’m an artist, they’re not impressed. I’m young and I look even younger. How do I convince them I’m serious? I either show them my art or I tell them that I’ve been on TV, that people pay me hundreds for commissions, that I went through art school, etc.
Those are the ways to convince people you’re serious about any craft: you either prove it to them – which is hard when it comes to novels, because you buy based on the cover and maybe a sample chapter and not the entire book – or you show them your credentials: people pay me money, people take me seriously, I know what I’m doing.
With self-publishing, that’s lacking, and that’s where the problem comes in. You can easily distinguish between published and self-published, but in the category of self-published books, where do you draw the line between the untrained self-important amateurs who immediately demand respect based on the fact books with their name on it EXIST – the kind described in the blog post you linked to – and people like you, who do take their craft seriously, who do respect the process, and make an informed decision based on their knowledge and experience? As much as I support people’s right to self-publish, you can’t deny that the vast majority doesn’t have a clue what they’re doing.
That’s the difference. You’re lumping yourself in with those people, and in order not to be treated as them, you’ll need to prove you’re different. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it understandable? Absolutely.
But the way to go about getting that respect is not to say “I’m a professional, published author.” As far as I can see, that’s all the blog rant was about: people who think the rough draft of their very first novel which never had a set of fresh eyes look at it is completely on par with the polished, professional work that pro authors produce and get paid for based on quality.
There’s nothing wrong with not being a professional – just don’t claim to be one if you’re not.
Corinne Duyvis’s last blog post..WIP Wednesday
There are two big differences between self-published books and blogs. First, nobody ever tried to charge for reading a blog. If they did, they would have a lot of trouble retaining readers. (Even the New York Times couldn’t manage it!) Second: hyperlinks. I mostly discover good blogs by following links to them from other places I like. There isn’t really an analogous mechanism for discovering good writing.
As for “respect”, I don’t respect professional, published authors. Not before I’ve read their work. Just as good books are not always published, so bad books are not always rejected. (And besides, tastes differ.)
Okay, I was going to leave a well-thought-out comment, but then I read Corinne’s comment and thought “exactly!”
Thanks for doing my work for me Corinne!
Alex Fayle | Someday Syndrome’s last blog post..Help Me Cure My Boredom!
Hi Emma, interesting thoughts here. I’m not sure if there’s a double standard or not, because I don’t know much about the visual art world. I enjoy being able to look at and purchase art on my own terms, online, not through a gallery, and affordable. No doubt there are some who look down on the work of those I enjoy as ‘not proper art’ though.
I think Corinne makes good points about books being different because you can’t see the whole thing, and from there, the importance of credentials. What other readers think is surely critical there, and I’m sure social media will have a huge part to play in that in the future, especially when authors put their stuff ‘out there’ as you are doing with things like the podcasting.
Whether or not you’ll be able to stop others saying ‘but you’re not a real writer…’, well, that’s a different matter….
Joanna Young’s last blog post..Your Comments Count
Hi Emma and you others,
just a few rather unsystematic thoughts:
1. If you go into one of those big bookshops you can find quite a few books which are published by publishing houses and you wonder why. Not in every case you say it is a quality book because it has been published by a publishing house. They look for books which sell.
2. What’s quality? I like to read books which carry me away, which touch something in me, which entertain me or make me smile – are they quality books?
3. it’s this “them” and “us” thing I don’t like. In Germany we have this distinction between “serious” music / literature and “entertaining” music / literature, and the first one is highly thought upon, the latter is frowned upon.
Just my 2 cents.
Ulla
Ulla Hennig’s last blog post..Art Nouveau House in Riga
It’s a very interesting division. I’ve been preparing a post on this on my site (not a plug, just out of interest!) including an interview with someone who did self-publish & how/why she did it. Incidentally, as long as you do it properly and get an ISBN number etc, it’s available on Amazon, which is where most people (am I extrapolating own habits as though they’re everyone’s? Possibly…) buy their books.
Agree completely with you that there’s an odd disconnection between the credibility of self-producing artists, musicians & theatre folk (indie, self-determined, ‘for real’) and that of writers. Perhaps all that will change as the old ways crumble. I have a feeling it might.
Queenie’s last blog post..Sunny!
Hi Emma.
What a great blog post and the comments here have been amazing. That’s the best thing about writers! Unlike most sites where the comments are neolithic unreasoned and painful to read, here we get reasoned intelligent pros and cons to the post.
Yay!
I agree with Corinne and I DON’T think you should self-publish.
Why?
Having heard the Prologue, Chap 1 & Chap 2 I believe quite strongly that a publisher will PAY YOU to print this book. That it will be marketed well too.
Also you should start charging for the podcasts after Chap 2.
Don’t give away this story for free. It’s too good.
You deserve recompense for your time and effort and work in producing it.
Love from Canada
twitter.com/RKCharron
xoxo
Rob Charron’s last blog post..RKCharron: @derekjgoodman Have you seen this pink weapon? http://bit.ly/19QA8i
Great post. I think you hit the nail on the head of the “us vs. them” mentality that flows freely through the publishing industry. Traditional publishing houses are no longer control of who enters the market, so they try to dismiss it. But, I think “Queenie” is on to something … ” change as the old ways crumble.” I think that with self-publishing, while you might not get the instant credibility associated with a “real” publisher, at least you have freedom and right to publish. And with all of the online marketing tools available to authors these days, you can reach out to your readers, who surely do not care who published your book, as long as it is good.
At the base level, yes, there is a double standard.
The problem I see with self-publishing (and I think many others get hung up on this too) is that too many self-published writers just slap something together, just to get it into print. They don’t pay for editing, they don’t pay for cover art, they simply produce a cheap product, and it shows. By your deciding to put out the best product you can, you’re already ahead of the game, but unfortunately, you’re going to have to work extra hard to combat the current perceptions created by those who didn’t.
Personally, I wouldn’t self-publish a work because of the reasons stated above: costs too much & doesn’t lend enough cred. If you have the time & money to deal with those two caveats, and are willing to take on the negative perceptions of the world, I say more power to ya.
(The thing I find funny is that people are all down on it, but initially, publishing was closer to the self-publishing model — William Blake, anyone?)
What it boils down to is, you know best for your work and who am I to say yea or nay?
Best,
Heather S. Ingemar
http://ingemarwrites.wordpress.com/
Heather Ingemar’s last blog post..Collecting Dreams excerpt
I think attitudes to self-publishing are based on the bad old days of vanity publishing. When where was not a hope in hell of making money out of a self-published book, so the only reason to do it was someone not good enough to get published could pretend they had.
These days, when a self-published author can get listed on amazon, and when blogs and microsites may enable them to market the book as effectively as book #718 published by one of the big names that year, it is a different world.
We’re still left with the problem of how to to distinguish between the two motivations, of course …
Let’s not forget Mark Twain was self published!
Now that anyone can publish a book, I think anyone should. Who cares if you’re not getting the seal of approval from publishers? They aren’t the gatekeepers anymore. Many “professionally published” books flop and many self (or co-) published books do well. The real litmus test is if readers want it, and that’s all that matters.
Whoa, imagine my surprise to see my stats go way up today and I find I’ve been mentioned here and there…
I am not a writer, although I love to write anyway. I am the artist Emma speaks of here, the author of MosaicMoods.
I am a holdout from the 70s – that wild and free time when we believed we would change the world from flat to round in a single generation. A round world would require jettisoning the standards of the day if we so desired, letting our freak flags fly, and giving the finger to “the Man.” I apologize if anyone has no idea what I’m talking about.
What I’m talking about is getting out of the freakin’ box. We seem to have crawled back inside in the last decade or so, as babes to the womb. “Give us structure, help us choose, tell us what to think and what to wear. Help us conform.” It’s ridiculous in this day and age that anyone with half a brain would have trouble knowing a good book from a bad one without a publisher’s “help.” I’ve poured some money down the drain on bestsellers at B&N myself.
Just as I know what I like musically, I know what I like to read. Some of what I like to read would be called “unpolished.” So much the better. Don’t gift wrap writers’ thoughts for me, give them to me raw. I can decipher. Don’t translate either. I want to hear the author’s true voice.
I don’t care if you want to continue to puree, can and market books and brand them as gourmet. Just don’t try to tell me that this one form of distribution, this “established” form of distribution, is the only real source of “a good read,” or the only legitimate form of distribution. That would be nonsense.
Musically, “The Blues” were a source of nourishment, purity and grace from the first guitar note ever played. To imply that anyone has ever improved on that first note with all our recording industries’ standards and accomplishments would be heresy.
The author’s voice. Her song. I hear it. Leave it alone.
By the way, ditto for the art gallery scene. Thankfully, it’s not the only game in town – far from it – but just as controlled and in many ways, just as snobby.
Oops, that may keep me out of some gallery some day! Oh well, at my age I’ll just have to decide whether my art is good enough all by myself. Hmm, what a concept… oh wait! That would be arrogant! Hmm, well then f*** it, call me arrogant. But before you do, show me your wares and let me have a look. Let me see what you do and how well you do it. Otherwise your opinion is of no consequence to me.
Joanna mentioned “What other readers think is surely critical there” referring to how a book receives its credentials. The same is supposedly true of galleries – who has what, hanging where, and how much does it cost? Status symbols… having the latest up-and-coming or the rarest antiquity often replaces the buyer’s visceral reaction to a work.
Don’t worry, it’s not global, this need for “help” in appreciating the arts. I am hopeful that the web’s current warp speed will cause artisans to unite and finish the job for us – make this flat world obscenely round and delicious.
Emma, so much good has been said here that I’m not entirely sure what to add. There always have been (and always will be) good arguments for and against traditional vs self publishing.
The one major leg up that traditional publishing has (and to be honest) probably the strongest reason that it is so powerful is distribution.
You may have written the best darned book in the world, but if no one knows about it, you have no audience. The traditional publishing industry holds contractual agreements with the bricks-and-mortar stores of the world, the massive distribution machines, and other institutions while hold sway over what most people are exposed to – and thus choose to read.
You want to be a writer – not a marketer, warehouse manager, mail service guru, or contract negotiator.
But here’s the interesting little tidbit that could very well tip the scales in your self-published favor … you have a blog, a Tribe, and a community who will help you no matter which route you end up choosing.
We will shout from our respective virtual mountain tops about the amazingness that is Twenty Years Later as soon as we have the chance. And for those of us lucky enough to have an independent bookstore in our area, we can go in and ask them to carry your book.
So I think that, so long as you follow a good process of editing, design, and construction of your tome, you can do it. Things have changed … it’s just that not everyone has recognized the change quite yet.
I’ve seen it from both sides. Firstly, as a newspaper editor, putting to one side anything sent for review that was self published.
Then, after my own experiences with publishing houses, deciding I’d do it myself.
My reasons were practical: the first book my new company published was too small to deliver a decent margin if too many people had to take a cut from it.
But it was also about having my eyes opened about what you get from a publisher. In my experience, and that of other published friends, not a lot. So they take half the profit in return for getting you listed on Nielsen and taking the financial risk.
So that’s where writing may also differ from visual art. The physical costs of publishing, even electronically, act as a barrier for so many who have something worthwhile to say.
It is possible to self-publish with a team of experts to support you. There isn’t anything a traditional publisher can do that the self-publisher doesn’t now have access to with the right connections.
What about getting into the large bookstores?
@Ben – That’s essentially impossible for a self-published writer.
But then this is where things get complicated. As a writer you have to ask yourself whether your goal is to be published or to be able to make a living from your writing. Many years ago these goals were well aligned. Now rather less so, since self-publication doesn’t often generate significant revenue.
This makes sense, because a publisher is in some ways just like a venture capital firm. They invest money in promoting your book, hoping they’re betting on a winner. When you self-publish you’re not able to invest huge sums in marketing in that way, so your audience is typically much smaller. The advantage is that you don’t risk making a financial loss. The disadvantage is that it likely won’t pay the bills.
Yes, that was the part of PG’s post I was querying. I don’t doubt the rest is possible – at a price, of course.
It can of course be argued that getting into the big stores is less important in the amazon age, and getting a book into them is of limited value if there’s no marketing spend and half a dozen sale-or-return copies languish on a back shelf somewhere. But it is nonetheless one of the key differences between the two routes.
I like to keep back and see where the conversation goes before I chip in – never thought it would be this interesting! Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to debate here, it’s great! When it dies down, I’ll add my tuppence.
When it dies down? We’re writers, we can keep wittering away forever!
A great little debate, how did I find it? I came across from another blog from an author I respect grahamstorrs.cantalibre.com – and I find another great blogger in Emma. Referential self-publishing?
I have not been in favour of self-publishing but this discussion has caused me to reconsider; I may still not self-publish but there is a joy in having your ideas challenged. Thank you, Emma, for kicking the ball along.
terry
I agree that one of the main problems with self-publishing is credibility, and the fact that, as Corrine said, you don’t know how bad a self-published book is until you pay for it and either download it or take it home and begin reading it. That fact has made self-publishing the red-headed stepchild of the publishing industry, but that reputation isn’t always earned.
We all know that some really bad books get published, and some really good books slip through the cracks. And self-publishing, particularly by way of the Kindle, has been a way for at least one serious, professional author to build an audience and get a traditional publishing deal for one of his very well-written books. If you’re interested, his name is Boyd Morrison and you can find his stories on Amazon.
I know about Boyd because I designed his very extensive and expensive website, but the key thing here is that Boyd took his job as a writer very seriously. He wanted to show publishers that he was serious about his career, that he considered himself a professional, and that he could take marketing into his own hands. Oh, and not the least of it, he wrote amazingly well-crafted, suspenseful, sell-able novels.
I just thought you might like an example of an author who used self-publishing to his advantage and used it to build a readership and catch a major publisher’s attention.