Going Indie

Sarah Glazer's essay, "How to Be Your Own Publisher," in the April 24 New York Times Book Review, seems to mark another step forward in the acceptance of self-publishing:

For the first time, print-on-demand companies are successfully positioning themselves as respectable alternatives to mainstream publishing and erasing the stigma of the old-fashioned vanity press. Some even make a case that they give authors an advantage -- from total control over the design, editing and publicity to a bigger share of the profits.

Although it is unfortunate that the essay focuses so much on the new "book" by Amy Fisher, that the NYTBR would devote so much space to the discussion of self-publishing suggests that there is enough potential in it that other book reviews might eventually pay attention to self-published books, if the form does indeed come to attract talented writers of real books.

What John Feldcamp, founder of Xlibris, says about the future of self-publishing is probably correct:

"Publishing has been an arcane specialist skill under the control of a guild of people that are unique and different from anyone else. . .Those skills have been so complicated they haven't been accessible to normal human beings. What's happening is all the technologies of publishing are becoming increasingly cheap and accessible". . . .

Not only has the technology of publishing been under the control of a "guild," but I would argue that the same thing is true of the editorial side of publishing. Who can honestly say that the decisions made by most mainstream publishers are being made according to some deep-seated love of good writing rather than the financial bottom line? That those in control of the publishing process have this control because they are uniquely qualifed to make judgments about the literary merit of what they publish? That their judgments are so obviously sound that we can be confident the books they choose are the best they could find and the books they decline are not worthy of publication?

Writers continue to seek publication through this process because of the lingering distinction that still glimmers faintly from some of the "name" publishing houses and because of the implicit flattery involved in having one's book chosen by people who are supposed to know what they're doing. But today's "book business" only offers most writers frustration on two fronts: Publishers who put most of their emphasis on big-name writers and blockbuster titles, and who while doing so still manage to lose money and fail to bring attention to the writers they do publish.

This essay by Akashic Books publisher Johnny Temple in my opinion only lends support to the notion that writers might be just as well off to publish themselves. Although publishers like Akashic are taking up some of the slack in publishing worthwhile books, Temple still calls on writers to themselves do more of the "promotional 'dirty work'" in getting their books noticed. "The ideal, of course, is to collaborate with an attentive and zealous publisher," he writes, "but the reality for most artists in any medium is that little is guaranteed beyond one's own efforts." If writers are increasingly being required to fend for themselves once their books are published, is it really such a big leap to doing everything oneself, including getting the book into print in the first place?

Temple comments further:

Once the pitfalls of today's publishing terrain are understood, writers can readjust their expectations. Start with a basic truth that is rarely presented in MFA programs and writers conferences: 5,000 copies sold is a fantastic number, particularly for a first-time author. This goes for books published by either indies or majors. (A quick probe of BookScan will show how few books pass this threshold.). . . .

The truth is, most literary fiction is going to appeal to a relatively small, self-selected audience. If writing well and cultivating one's art is what's most important to the serious writer, I don't see why this should be debilitating. Audiences for good work grow over time, but even if they don't, it doesn't seem so tragic for a writer to reach those readers most likely to appreciate what he/she is trying to do. Furthermore, if your book is going to sell only a few thousand copies even if it's published by a New York publisher, surely a self-published book effectively publicized by its author is going to have a chance of equalling this number, at least, especially if the author is able to take advantage of the increasing influence the literary blogosphere seems to be having. (Either by starting up a blog or by appealing to those maintaining existing blogs.) Other ways of marketing one's work on the internet are surely going to develop as well.

Glazer cites several examples of self-published books that have sold many more than 5,000 copies. Most of these are nonfiction books, to be sure, books that fit into what one quoted publisher calls "microniches." But since it is literary fiction that tends to be worst-served by the publishing business, I don't see what writers of such fiction have to lose by going the self-publishing route. If the book business continues to be operated as incompetently as it has been lately, they may eventually have no other choice. I think it's quite possible that some very talented or very brave writer will sometime relatively soon decide to self-publish and will be successful at it. Once it's been established that one can self-publish and still maintain one's dignity (and maybe sell some copies as well), other writers will follow. Being able to efficiently get one's book into the hands of interested readers ought to make up for any "prestige" lost through bypassing the conventional publishers, who are increasingly proving unworthy of the job of gatekeeping for both serious writers and readers.

(I would not want my remarks to suggest I don't respect the efforts being made by what Temple calls "indie publishing." I do. But I also think self-publishing could simply be another way of going "indie.")

Comments

[Kirby Gann]

This is an interesting and anxiety-producing (on the part of being an indie publisher, and being a literary writer) topic; it's true that publishers are relying more and more on their authors to help get the word out. As a writer, though, it seems to me that there are some difficulties ahead if going the self-publishing route: 1) the amount of time it requires to move a book through production, from manuscript to published book -- who does a self-published author turn to for help with editing, copy-editing, etc? (Authors can't be relied upon to catch every typo themselves.) And then, of course, there's the work required in preparing a book to market, to reach an audience. Which leads me to point #2: distribution. One of the great aspects about publishing with even a very small independent is the prospect of having your book distributed nationally, and to have it eligible for book reviews in a variety of venues. It's true that reviews don't appear to have a huge effect on a book's final sales -- but reviews DO help garner attention from booksellers, who will then hopefully stock a book that appears interesting to them.

Without the proper distribution and the ability to have a title noticed, the risk a serious writer runs by self-publishing is that attention and energy are going to be sucked up by the necessary efforts required just to alert anyone (outside family and friends) that a book exists, and then convincing these others that the book might be worth their time.

One can imagine that authors then might become completely localized, or, at best, regionalized artists -- making appearances at book fairs, et cetera. To my mind this kind of thing would result in even further balkanization of the literaray and cultural world than we're suffering now.

[Outer Life]

It's all about the words, isn't it? If it's all about the words, any development that increases the distribution of the words while decreasing the compromises needed to distribute the words must be a good thing, right? POD is an improvement, to be sure, but isn't electronic publishing (aka blogging) the easiest and purest method of word distribution ever invented? Sure, it doesn't pay, and it won't make you a star, but then it's all about the words, isn't it?

[Jeff VanderMeer]

What about the role the editor plays in the process? I think self-published authors would miss out on the accumulated experience of a professional editor working for a professional publishing house. And if they had to hire a freelancer to get that experience, then that 10% royalty rate from an actual publishing house begins to seem okay.

JeffV

[Gotham Image]

Thank you very much.

[AUF]

Glazer talks of how the Times doesn't review vanity press books. For an exception, see here:

http://anotheruselessfact.blogspot.com/2005/05/oh-really.html