By Edward Nawotka
In today’s feature story Stona Fitch, founder of Concord Free Press, describes his company’s philosophy of seizing the machinery of publishing to help others. In the article, he encourages publishers to take the opportunities afforded by digital and self publishing to “become advocates — not just for their own work via relentless shilling on Facebook and Twitter, but for larger communities aggregated by genre, geography, or politics.” His publishing model defies the underlying assumptions of traditional commercial publishing and challenges the new generation of DIYers to think beyond themselves.
At present, do you think self-publishers are, well, too selfish? With the relentless focus on “me, me, ME!” wouldn’t DIYers learn a great deal more about the publishing process — from editing to production to distribution — if they were to work on another person’s book? By taking the risk and responsibility of “publishing” rather than merely uploading a manuscript to an online distributor or production company and hoping for the best? Wouldn’t readers, in the long run, be better off as the professional values of traditional publishing proliferate through this new generation?
It’s my personal belief that a DIYer or self-publisher should not call themselves a “publisher” until they they take risk and responsibility for publishing another person’s work, which in turn is taking responsibility for another author’s well being. Yes, you can argue the semantics of it as much as you like, but until that point a self-publisher is merely a “printer” (digital or conventional, sophisticated or not) adopting an honorific that they don’t deserve.
Let us know what you think in the comments.
29 Comments
It’s easy for you to call self-publishers selfish. But you should pose the same question about major publishers. Writers who work very hard at their craft find that thwy are paid peanuts for their work and exploited by major publishers. In the end, writerss still have to do their own marketing, while the publisher gets the higher percwntage of royalties. Now that is selfish! In the end it’s not about “being selfish” but protecting oneself from the sharks (major publishers) who provide an unfair playing field.
Wow, this argument is strained beyond belief, and perhaps suggests the fear publishers have that their days are numbered. As a writer, I’m not happy about that–I believe a strong, informed, and imaginative publishing industry helps authors _and_ readers. However, now that the corporate giants have swallowed whole so many publishing houses and driven away the best editors, the bottom line rules and know-nothing semi-literates such as Christine O’Donnell get book deals while nation’s most innovative, imaginative, and compelling writers fight desperately to land no-money contracts with a shrinking number of small-press publishers. In this kind of environment, self-publishing, sadly, becomes the last flicker of a dying star. So, yes, sure–help your fellow writers out, especially if you’ve been down the road and have something to offer them. But do it because the breed is dying, not because it will make some people feel better about applying the term “publisher” to you.
Hmm, I don’t know if I’d say too selfish, but I think self-published authors are perhaps conflicted when it comes to where they stand on the issues of money, profit and why they’re publishing. They argument about big publishers seems to be that they’re focused on money instead of quality writing. However, the argument that self-published authors use to prove that self-publishing works is to point to the amount of money the top self-published authors are making. So, they both seem to be using the same yard stick to measure success.
I think the problem with that argument, for me, lies with implying that self-published authors refer to themselves as “publishers”, Most of them just stick with “author”, if anything.
I plan to self-publish if I can’t find an outlet for my work, but I don’t think it makes me selfish – I think it’s just a way of being able to offer my work to others via the internet without the requirements set in place by an industry that developed far before this particular platform did, and in some cases are still catching up with it.
I don’t think you have to work on another person’s work to appreciate the effort and skill that goes into producing a novel, and by that I don’t just mean “writing it” – I mean the formatting, cover design, marketing and other aspects that tie into publishing a work. But I agree that you do have to publish multiple authors before you can refer to yourself as a publisher, as I doubt an indie metal band refer to themselves as a “label” because they create their own gig posters.
Traditional publishing stands at a crossroads – either it adapts to the fact that e-publishing is now a valid alternative and continues to support indie authors by offering them advances, or it continues to overprice e-books and has the distinct displeasure of watching its revenue stream go down the toilet because people are able to find the same enjoyable reading experience in a 99p download created by an individual as they would in a 6.99 “on-sale” e-book from a major publisher that can only offer its services to so many a year.
Personally, I like both, but I think to imply that anyone wanting to self-publish must, by the default lack of knowledge, be selfish and “me, me, me” is a generalisation and an exaggeration of a very small part of the self-publishing community. People are willing to learn, but that doesn’t mean they’ve got to learn via a more traditional route. Self-publishing in the digital age is all about tearing up the rulebooks, and your argument suggests that the only way to succeed is to, in part, follow the old one – so why bother to self-publish at all?
My granddaddy used to take his team of mules into the Alabama forest, harvest a huge pine tree, and drag it back to the side-yard of his general store. When he didn’t have customers, he cut railroad ties from that pine tree with a double-bit ax, and sold them to the railroad for $2 each (more than most self-published ebooks). Was he self-sufficient? Self-determined? Selflessly working to improve the lot of his family? Or was he selfish?
Just because the word “self” is in self-publishing doesn’t mean it’s selfish. More likely, it’s a sign of self-determination in the face of withering opposing forces.
I self-publish because I have to. And your appellation that self-publishers are “selfish” is the worst insult to those of us who bear all the risks of the work and reap little rewards. I suggest you do it yourself first to see how hard we work to keep our heads above water in a hostile sea of bad literature published by the so-called “professionals”, and you are no arbiter of what constitutes a publisher. I would be publishing others’ books if I was not aware of the enormous responsibility that entails and the risk of disappointing the authors I would undertake. That I lack the enormous capital big publishers can just get is the issue, otherwise I would be glad to do it. So I suggest you think twice before you hike your nose at us.
“I self-publish because I have to.”
You’ve been forced to self-publish?
It might be worth pointing out that one class of authors–academics–have long operated as though they were in a gift economy. It is their mission to spread knowledge as far and as widely as possible, and it is no accident that the “open access” movement has begun in academe. Very few scholarly authors make any significant money from their publications; they gain, rather, by advancement in their careers through the reputations their books earn them. Scholarly publishers, of course, need to make money to cover their costs, but university presses, at least, have no shareholders to satisfy and therefore can explore other ways to achieve their goals than by selling books into the marketplace. Some presses already do what the Concord Free Press does, viz., give their books away for free, though they do so online rather than in print.
I’m not sure why anyone who knows anything about publishing would suggest that people who are at the bleeding edge of the new paradigm would want to imitate a failed model.
A better suggestion, perhaps, would be for the traditional publishers/editors/agents to try writing a book.
@Catherine — Traditional publishing is hardly a failed business model. It continues to generate $120 billion in sales annually worldwide, with $30 billion of that coming from the United States.
Only the quality of the book is important.
@Edward–Well, it was a business model that failed for me and for many others, and I think we’re well on our way to a much better one.
Why can’t they both be publishers? Both self-publishers and people who put out other people’s work. Really, what difference does it make – short of having a reason to write a blog post that might generate some discussion. To think I don’t have my own livelihood at stake, or my daughter’s, by self-publishing is really trying to find a new and innovative way to downgrade self-publishers now that they’re gaining legitimacy.
Great article, Ed. Refreshing, solid, thorough take.
I find the level of aggression on many of the comments disturbing. First, because what you wrote is not an attack. Second because you are not saying anything that can be construed as a statement against authors. What you say is almost a fact–being a publisher, or as in some other languages we refer to publishers, an editor, is a lot more than giving authors the ability to convert a file into a format that can be sold.
It is interesting that some comments attack you but also say that if they had the resources they would help other authors. That is precisely what publishers do, they invest in authors. In less authors than those who wished they were published, but that is their prerogative and one hard to argue with because no one can expect any publisher, no matter how big, to publish everybody. Very many self published authors quote economic reasons for self publishing–a higher percentage of sales. And good for them too. They want their work published and want it to pay way more than a publisher doing all the publisher work can pay them.
Both publishers and authors look for ways to maximize benefits. The business of publishers entails many authors, editors, copywriters, designers, developers, producers, accountants, lawyers, rights deals, sales forces, marketing, etc.. The business of self published authors involves themselves and platforms that allow them to pub and sell by themselves without charging them for anything but a relatively low percentage of the sales. Those are facts, not matter of offense.
Every business man is selfish so I guess Ed has a point, only I didn’t hear him say the same of trad pubs. A lot of self-publishers give business to free-lance editors, cover artists, and sometimes publicists. They also put their money on the line to improve themselves. Why are they now more selfish? Cos they don’t have as much money as the big presses? Those that have the capital and time to invest go ahead to do publish others too like Stona, or myself with Naijastories.com.
Too long-winded for the comments block. My counter-argument here: http://jwmanus.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/selfish-indie-publishers-im-all-for-them/
There is no reason why a “self-publisher” shouldn’t be considered a “publisher.” Both publish works from an author, period. As long as the work is well written, edited, designed and printed professionally, or in todays electronic world converted to an electronic file.
Major publishers have played bully in the publishing marketplace for too long. Now that self-publishers are entering the market, major publishers are losing some share in that market, causing them to badmouth self-publishers and tighten avenues in the trade business. This is new world and self-publishing is here to stay. And perhaps self-publishers need to be selfish to compete with already self serving selfish major publishers.
I don’t see why we can’t have both, opposed to this rigid us-vs-them dichotomy. I think DIY is a great professional development training tool for people who otherwise may wait a lifetime to be recognized. One learns about production, marketing, and selling. It’s a space fertile with mistakes and accompanying valuable business lessons. I’d love to see more and more artists find career longevity by going from plain cog to producer, both self-producer and “publisher” as it’s named here. But who the heck wants a book edited by someone that hasn’t cut their teeth? I can see that being a disaster. In that respect, DIYers play an extraordinarily valuable role in the creation, exploration, and founding of new voices. As long as the work is made public, we all as a society and as an arts field benefit from the new content. Nothing selfish about that.
Very interesting discussion that tugs at my very indie and self-publishing loving little heart.
I think self publishing is far from selfish. I believe it is every writers choice to share their work with the world if they so choose. I think it is wonderful that we have so many different ways in which writers can do so.
I also believe that self publishers have every right to call themselves indie publishers if they create a small press by which to publish their work, instead of using sites like smashwords, lulu, and create space. Examples of this would be curbside splendor- begun by an author to publish his own work, who now publishes works by mother authors as well- and tiny toe press- who published only his own novel thus far.
I love literature in all it’s forms. As should we all.
It is a ridiculous premise to say that self publishing is selfish. Since the onset of the internet self-expression has been destined to end up in some kind of published version on countless websites. Taking it to the extreme, this argument would apply to anyone learning to cook, doing their own home improvements or taking photos on a digital camera etc, etc.
Thanks for the lively conversation. This article is by no means an attack and should not be taken as one. I take self-publishing seriously, respect the effort involved and trying to raise the level of dialog about self-publishing beyond “us vs. them” and screeds about how someone was wronged by traditional publishers and they are all going to go under because no one needs them any more. That’s hardly developing the profession and largely a self-comforting myth, which is likely why some are quick to get defensive about it.
It is clear to me that the lines between self-and-traditional publishing are blurring and I’m looking for the overlap, to see where the two dovetail and can learn from each other. We’re want Publishing Perspectives to play a part in that. Type “self-publishing” into the search box on this site and you will find a range of dozens of articles on the topic covering a full range of perspectives. (The name Publishing Perspectives is deliberate). This conversation is ongoing — if you don’t subscribe to the daily newsletter, do so and please come back more frequently to tell us about what you’re doing.
My point here is that, to me, taking on the mantle of “publisher” means degree of responsibility for someone other than yourself, in investing in the work of others. Why do I say this…well, let me put it another way: we all have money and take responsibility for investing it on our own — whether by merely putting it in the bank, investing in mutual funds online, buying up gold nuggets…whatever.
But as soon as start describing yourself as a “money manager” or “investment advisor” it suggests that you are confident enough in your abilities that you’re willing to take responsibility for investing another person’s money. The degree of effort, expertise, and risk involved in taking account for your own finances and managing another person’s money are themselves quite different.
I think the issue here is over your definition of “publisher”. Your argument seems to be that unless you publish someone else, you can’t call yourself a publisher.
That’s fine, that’s your definition; but I don’t agree.
I think that once you take a manuscript and arrange for the editing, cover design, formatting, blurb copywriting, decide the pricing, send out ARCs, and devise and execute a marketing plan, turning that raw manuscript into a book that is distributed to all the major vendors and available for purchase by customers around the world, then you are entitled to call yourself a publisher no matter what the source of the manuscript was. Now, if you like, you can add the qualifier of “self-” as the manuscript was written by the publisher and didn’t go through an independent vetting process.
But that’s a “qualifier”, not a “disqualifier”.
The notion that you have to publish someone else to be a publisher is something that major publishers concocted and called it a rule to keep competition out of the industry . That rule is no longer valid in todays changing publishing industry.
“But as soon as start describing yourself as a “money manager” or “investment advisor” it suggests that you are confident enough in your abilities that you’re willing to take responsibility for investing another person’s money. The degree of effort, expertise, and risk involved in taking account for your own finances and managing another person’s money are themselves quite different.”
I’d have to say that you’re argument is weak here. Someone who wants to manage someone else’s money cannot just wake up one day and do so. A “money manager” or an “investment advisor” has to study and take an exam to obtain certification in order to manage someone else’s funds.
When you start arguing that self-publishers might take on ever more “self aggrandising” monikers such as money manager or investment advisor, just goes to show how shallow and self-delusional your original premise was.
Anyone, be they writer, artist, autobiographer, who chooses to self publish simply earns the right to call themself a publisher. It is a catch all term, that implies certain things, but as with any term the merits are in the output, which is where they will be judged.
Btw any writer or artist who self publishes, will more likely call themself a writer or artist. It just swings that way.
Let’s have some f”£$%^& respect around here.
@Paul — My reference to “money managers” is an analogy Paul. I don’t say self-publishers are going to start calling themselves “money managers.”
Asking a question like this only leads me to believe that major publishers are now resorting to the name/blame game to stay alive. Self/independent publishers already have a larger market share and growing. So it only leads me to believe that it’s only a matter of time before the wall comes crashing down on those in the trade industry who resist self/independent publishing movement.
One more thing…trade industry promoters (PW and the like)…charging self/indie publishers for reviews (when majors are not charged) only reveals the true nature/intention/motive of the old publishing industry ways.
I never read a greater crock of garbage than this. Go away, study the history of publishing, then come back. If you have any facility for though and for the understanding of facts, you will then erase this article in your extraordinary embarrassment.
Is it being selfish to want to see ones creative labors have a chance in the market place? Are editors and publishers really entitled to decide what will entertain an audience best? Is the fact that publishers have to invest a lot of money in a book and are therefore particularly cautious about their selections something to be applauded or avoided? Is the artistic community to be ever held in bondage by the opinions of non-artist critics? If one looks back a century the artists that the critics applauded are usually those whom history judges as second rate.
It’s time for writers to get those manuscripts out there. Hurry because those self-proclaimed know-it-all’s are storming the castle in order to control the drawbridge.