How to use this Page

I think there will still be a definite role for literary agents to play in the future of publishing. As you pointed out, they're far more than just "gatekeepers".

Their role may morph according to needs of the industry, but I can't see it going the way of travel agents, for example. There are just too many more things in the mix than just searching for what you want and finding it.

Everyone has to change, and if you don't you'll be left behind.

I think you are right, everything is changing. It's hard to say exactly WHAT it will change into, though. I think agents provide a wonderful service and I think, the studious ones, will find their place in the new publishing world--whatever it happens to end up being.

I wonder if the day will come when agents must query writers.

What could their role be?

Their role now essentially is to do the business side of publishing so a writer can write, yes?

As a self-published author I know there is a whole lot that goes into the business side. Would an agents role then grow to take things such as coordinating with editors, book cover artists, bloggers and blog tours, and PR?

If that were the case, I'd gladly put a percentage of earnings for those items to be off my plate.

As an agent I can say that I am not afraid of disappearing, it's just that some aspects of my role are changing at warp speed-- and what I provide for clients is also evolving. It's actually a very exciting time in terms of new opportunities for authors. The tough part is the changing business model and adding services where there are specific client needs. I feel as though my role as a coach to my clients is more robust then ever and I think my clients would agree that in this time of uncertainty that having a partner in this process is very valuable. Great blog Nathan!

I think Lee Lofland is on the right track. I wouldn't doubt that in the future, agents will be sending queries to successful indie authors saying, 'Here's what I can do for you...' In fact, to some extent that is already happening to some authors.

I'm not sure how the publishing agency is going to change, but I think in 10 years or so, they may be obsolete (at least in the current incarnation).

I tend to think the role of agent may become more of a business manager role and they will take on some of the marketing functions that publishers take on now. Not sure exactly how that will work financially. Perhaps a cut of sales so it's in their best interest to really promote a book? Right now, I'm not sure the financial structure of publishing makes sense for anyone but the publisher.

It would always be worth it to me, for example, to pay 15% of contracted deals to have the deal run smoothly and keep all parties in the loop, but the article you cite above, Why Rejection Letters of the Future Will be Silent, only further confuses the issue. In the same breath that many agents are trying to clarify their role in a deal as facilitator/pitchman, they are still talking about the 99% they see as unpublishable. Given the fact that lots and lots of real crap is published annually, making people lots of money, isn't it safe to say that the whole, "you were rejected because your writing isn't good enough" line is at the very least disingenuous? To stay viable, I believe literary agents would be well served to concentrate on the fact that a decision to represent a new writer is based upon potential income, not some nebulous and highly subjective concept of arbiter of the quality of literature. If a writer feels they are ready to publish, and the book can make enough money to go around, it becomes a business decision. I really think the tired, old leather-patched elbows vision of Gatekeeper is something that needs to have a stake driven through its heart once and for all.

Agents are too egotistical and arrogant to be scared. Plus, since publishers get the dry heaves at the thought of actually dealing with rank and vile authors whose names aren't King and Grisham, the few that actually have gotten their toes wet in epublishing have still found a way to keep agents on the playing field. There's one publisher with a new electronic imprint that will only accept submissions from a small handful of participating literary agencies. Which, in my mind, is just furthering a decayed business model that never really worked for writers or anybody, to begin with. Keeping agents on the playing field and maintaining that buffer between them and unpublished talent is simply a needless perpetuation a corrupt, collusive status quo that so needs to go or radically change.

I don't think agents should be worried... yet. Self-publishing has a lot of evolving to do before their worlds change all that much.

I think those who are willing to adapt and shape their role with what's happening in the industry will still be around. Their title may change and some or all of their duties, but I've found people who love the business want to be in it in some capacity. If it's their passion, they'll find where they fit. Or even better, maybe someone will blaze a new trail and change how we do things entirely. (Hopefully for the better.)It could be an agent just as easily as a writer or anyone else in publishing.

Hell no they're not going anywhere.

Agents may have to evolve further as the needs of the writers and publishers change.

The need for evolving to suit the times occurs in other industries as well. It's not new, and those who see the writing will adapt.

I think we still need agents, but that's IMO.

I think agents can survive (and thrive) if they shift their model back to working for the writer. The agent needs to go back to being someone that supports the writer and helps him achieve the things he's not good at, like marketing. Agents that cling to publishers and working for publishers and screening for publishers... they are going to decline as the publishers decline.

Well, I happen to know of a few agents who quit being agents. Doesn't mean it's a trend, though. Or maybe it is... Ultimately, there will always be agents of one kind or another.

Super interesting comments! I'm just absorbing it all. At the very least their roles will change further, but it's so hard to say how. I suppose it's like predicting the next trend in publishing and then being right about it!

There'll still a need for agents, but with the rise of independent e-publishing (both self-pub and small press), there may not be a need for as many as in the past.

Large contracts, movie/TV rights, and foreign language rights will still have to be negotiated. Agents with a background in contract and/or intellectual property law will be in the best position to represent authors in this process.

Honestly, I don't think they should be worried. I love having an agent, and I can't imagine doing this without her. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

My agent doesn't just send my book out to editors and negotiate contracts. She gives me editorial feedback, she answers questions, she finds ways for me to promote my book. I don't think we'll ever stop needing that.

But I've always thought that self-publishing was going to coexist with "traditional" publishing, not destroy it.

I think that most writers will always need agents, because a lot of us aren't familiar with the publishing industry and we don't know how to sell books like agents do. Not to mention agents can provide very helpful feedback on our manuscripts.

I don't think they will disappear any time soon, but I definitely feel a change in the industry.

It's a fascinating time. Everyone is re-inventing themselves now that the book universe has changed. I've marketed services in the past,and it's a hell of a lot of work. Trying to sell my book without a good agent is like venturing out on a new road without a map.

Well, my friend... did YOU stick around? :)

The agent is already changing and they will fill the role of business partner so writers can do what they like - write. But their role as gatekeeper and their number will certainly dimish. I see them calling authors who have made a name for themselves

Yawn.

Agents - for those who have been paying attention to the political landscape of publishing - have been 'worrying' for at LEAST two years now.

I'll never forget the terrified scurry by agents running back to hotel rooms after the 'agents forum' concluded during the 2010 PNWA conference in Seattle.

...Or the actual 'shout down' of agents at the 2011 conference by PNWA attendees who were calling BS on agents and their 'It's your query letter' spiel for why authors were facing 3:36,000 odds of getting a traditional publish contract. Yep, they were worried, alright!

I come back every once in a while to the Bransford Blog in hopes of catching an actual cutting-edge topic - oh well - sigh.

It's Big 6 Editors who should be worried. Agents are salespeople, the world always need them; especially in an industry littered with introverts.

The Big 6 carry tons of merger-debt and yet still have EPS expectations. The next thing they'll require agents/writers to bring with them is a professionally edited manuscript. At that point, what does the author need the publisher for?

Seeley James

I can't believe that agents are going anywhere. I have to believe that there will always be traditional publishing houses. Even if there aren't as many, the role of the agent may evolve, as so many careers do these days. As long as there are authors trying to break into the game, agents will have work - in whatever form it may be.

I agree with the sentiment of agents working for the authors. Becoming an agent FOR the author in truth.

I wonder how long it will be until we start seeing agents trolling through blogs, self-pubbed works on Amazon and Smashwords, and Wattpad, looking for the next author to sign?

Could make things really interesting if the agents are the ones who have to start shopping themselves around. They would still pick quality writers to choose to serve and promote, but would turn the current model on its head.

I'm surprised to see people posting that agents need to start working for writers. That is, and always has been, what they do. If they didn't they'd be out of a job. The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda.

I agree that agents can be more than just gatekeepers. The question is will they be? One of their challenges is size - most being too small to make dramatic change. A few thoughts on the changing industry dynamic are on one of my blogs http://onewritersvoice.com/2011/04/11/writers-and-the-long-tail/

Nathan, you're definitely one of the "good guys," and I can say that because we've met, chatted, and you've been a guest on my blog. However, not all writers have had pleasant experiences with agents. And those not-so-nice encounters are the root of many of the ill-willed comments you see and hear.

Actually, I've had a couple of bad experiences with agents and that makes me quite leery about future dealings, should I ever need to begin a new and much-dreaded agent search.

I think that authors will always need coaches, mentors and guides. People who understand the business and contracts. People to offer editorial help or referrals) and emotional support.

The skill set of agents will continue to be hotly in demand (not to mention their contacts). Whether their job title will change or not, I don't know.

But I do think that agents will start moving away from the traditional idea of:

***Contract with a client, and try to sell their work to a Big 6 publisher**

and more to:

**Contract with a client and figure out the best publishing path for them. Whether indie publishing, small press publishing, traditional publishing, some combination or something else entirely.**

So, I think agents will foster each client's individualized path to publication.

They may also experiment with flat fee assistance. Indie writers who want help with film rights, etc.

This would be a very good idea, I think. :) Not too much time investment, but potentially lucrative. The interesting thing is that agents may find that as they individualize the client's path to publishing, they make more money. 15% of 70% is a nice chunk of change.

Agents do risk reaping some anger from indie writers now, if they shut them out or refuse to listen to their concerns. This is the biggest danger facing agents right now. I'm not an agent, of course, so people can take this with a grain of salt, but if I were an agent, I would try to present myself so that every writer on the planet saw me as potentially THEIR ally, no matter what path they took or how they felt about the Big 6.

I say this because I believe that indie writers are not a subset. I believe they are the future. Whether traditional publishing survives or not, I think indie writers will make up a HUGE chunk of the market. So, I think agents would be wise to be very attractive to all writers on this planet called Earth.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks so much for an interesting discussion, Nathan!

Let's hope so!
(Just kidding.)

The present model needs to, and probably will, change.
It has been too easy for writers to feel like they are a fly being swatted away. When I read that out of 10,000 queries to an agent, not one was taken up it seems like a system that is not working. What a waste of time, both for the agent and the 10,000 writers.

I also think that those writers who have become accustomed to a 60 - 70% royalty will not easily give up percentages of their income again. Fixed amounts, yes, but not ongoing percentages.

I know some solid travel agents that have managed to stay in business by adapting and specializing. If they can make a living in the world of Priceline and Expedia, I'm pretty sure the smartest, most forward thinking agents will be able to as well. The mediocre? Yes, they should be refining their skills to secure other employment.

Artists will always need business people to help them not get screwed by other business people.

The artists' business people might wind up with a new label (manager always being a popular choice when going for vague) and the business people might wind up with a new label, but the essential dynamic is eternal.

Agents aren't gatekeepers, but they are the funnel through which books get to publishers. That funnel will always exist, but I think it is tightening and soon will include only the "big six" and a handful of intrepid hangers-on. Midlist will move to indie and self publishing, making it much harder for second tier agents to make a living. As an agent, if you're not living on the best seller list, you'll be doomed.

Going extinct? No. Becoming rare? That's how I see it.

Unless the publishing industry suddenly becomes run by angels and will never try to rip you off...you will ALWAYS need an agent
I wouldn't try to buy a house without a real estate agent...so why would I sign a book deal without a literary agent?
Same idea.. protection,peace of mind and most of all, someone to blame when things go wrong :)

I don't have any axes to grind against agents personally, and I know some agents that I like very much, but I also know a lot of authors who have been burned by their experiences.

Will they go away completely? I think it is worth considering that agents have not always had the "exclusive gatekeeper to editors/publishers" role they (sort of) have now. I was shocked when I read some of the history on the subject and learned about how recent those kinds of developments were. I used to think agents were as "traditional" as publishers themselves. Not true. Most authors did not need them once, and they submitted their manuscripts directly to editors. Maybe we'll go that route again, who knows?

I do think that agents will have a much smaller role in the future.

I think agents will continue to groom promising writers, especially those who are self publishing. Most writers want to write, but if they chose the self publishing path, they have to market themselves. A lot of writers don't want to take the time or have the interest in building a platform, branding themselves, and attracting readers.
Agents could help them with fee-based services to get their self published books attention.
I wouldn't be surprised if interns and newer agents aren't already familiar with what it takes to be successful as a self publisher and wanting to take the next step, offer a service to recruit writers to they agency.

"The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

I did see that posted on a popular self-publisher's blog recently. I thought the same thing.

But I also think the agents that will continue to thrive are those who are willing to change with the times. In other words, no more divas. And please don't tell me that's not how it is with some. There's been a great party going on for many years, and I think that party has ended. I really do know, from personal experience, in some cases it is that way. I have seen and heard things I would never repeat. And I also believe that when agents stop worrying about print books...and trying to save print books and brick and mortar bookstores...they are going to be a huge help to authors.

But it's all so secretive now, and no agents are speaking up about anything. Please don't tell me you haven't see this either. There used to be many agent blogs; many have shut down. It's like they are all terrified to speak on any topic involving e-publishing or the way things are evolving. It's very interesting to watch.

But again, I do think there will always be a need for agents. I just think it will be a different breed of agents in years to come. Summer Fridays are going to be a thing of the past, especially as new authors begin to produce more at a faster pace.

The good thing is that readers can now vet books they might never have had a chance to read because an agent didn't like it. And we all know that's the case because agents themselves have always said it's a subjective business. In other words, readers and authors aren't chained to the specific tastes of agents. If you ever check out the conversations on goodreads for self-published books, you'll see how much fun thousands of readers are now having.

anon-

I agree, I wish more agents would step up and speak up about these things and defend both themselves and the business. At some point it becomes exhausting, though. I certainly get exhausted by the negativity and I'm not even an agent anymore. There are people where being anti-traditional is a religion, and it makes you want to just throw up your hands and disengage.

I know there are superiority complexes on both sides, I know there are rude people on both sides, but I'm not sure I know a single person left in traditional publishing who is actually anti-self-publishing or anti-e-publishing. Just about everyone has a client who started that way even if they're not actively facilitating self-publishing, how could they be anti?

But there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there. It gets very very exhausting to try and stand in front of that mob and shout for reasonableness.

People who become exhausted trying to find an agent--with a good book--are more likely to eventually run to self publishing. But I learned if I want to see my book on the shelves…I would need an agent. I'm not going to jump out at anyone online like in a store. Both sides have pros and cons. It's up to the author to decide which option is best for them. As long as bookstores are around, agents will be too ;)

Nathan,

I understand that you have a very unique perspective, since you are a former industry insider and an author, but I want to make a suggestion because I hear how frustrated you sound.

I hope this is helpful. Since I tend to be an anti-publishing zealot, I may be the wrong person to offer this to you, you may be fairly fed up with me, but....I'm going to offer it anyway, for what it's worth, and hope it's helpful.

It's not like I follow these suggestion myself, but I should, and I'd like to get better at it.

Okay, so here it is:


People don't take a strong stand against something unless there is a very good reason for it. And until someone understands their reason, it is very rare for someone to relax their position.


So, before arguing for reasonableness, it helps to listen to the other peson first. Really listen. Fully understand their perspective. As if you were them.

And don't assume you already do. Look at what people are saying and how they are feeling, and really put yourself in their shoes.

Because shouting for reasonableness doesn't work because people will just shout their reasonableness back even louder.

That's the thing. Each side shouts their side and no one listens, and it doesn't go anywhere because neither side feels heard and so they just shout louder.


The training I've had in communication (occasionally, I remember to use it) suggests that when you are talking to someone who disagrees with you you start by:

a. Hearing them and reflecting it back to them. Keep reflecting and wait until they say: Yes, you understand.

b. Then, find a point of agreement, or if that's not possible, go to the next step which is to ask them to listen to your position.

People will often stop being angry if they just feel heard. EVEN IF THEY STILL DISAGREE. If they feel heard, they relax and they can usually hear your side.

Part of why the anti-publishing faction is so strident right now, is they are not being heard.


If anyone is in a position to help writers feel heard, it's agents. It's just going to take some neogtiating within themselves to be non-defensive, courageous and open in communication.

They need to understand that some writers feel hurt, damaged, dismissed, and angry at the industry. Telling them they shouldn't feel that way won't work. It will just make them more angry or hurt.

You have to listen.

It would also be nice if someone would listen to agents as well, so I'm going to do that right now, alittle bit. I imagine this must be very stressful and scary for them right now. I imagine they feel somewhat betrayed and misunderstood themselves. And getting pressure from both sides. I imagine it is very hard, and I hope they are offering support to each other, or finding ways to feel some sense of comfort within their community.

Anyway, hope this was helpful and not more aggravating.

I wonder if agents will "evolve" in the same way the headhunter's job did after the advent of online job boards like Yahoo and Monster.

Headhunters never went away completely. Those who still demonstrate value to job-seekers are still around today. These are the ones who actually work for the client.

And then you have the others...headhunters who link to a million people on LinkedIn and browse the same job listings anyone has access to.

The game may change but the smart ones find a way to evolve.

"there are a heck of a lot of anti-traditional-publishing zealots out there"

As someone who works for a Big Bank and thinks my company is one of the good guys, I understand the feeling. From my office I can hear the Occupy protestors (they're quite festive and lively, BTW). I know the good side of my industry and know there is incredible misinformation being spewed by our detractors. In some cases, outright lies. So I hear what you're saying.

But those zealots were created by something. People don't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I hate traditional publishing. I'm going to go trash those muthers!" And people don't hate Big Publishing because Amazon has brainwashed them.

I have met wonderful people (yourself among them) in publishing. I love the writers, agents, and editors I've met at conferences. I've made amazing friends. But there are also those agents who give all y'all a bad name. There are those who are infuriatingly arrogant and elitist. There are those who act like gatekeepers and seem to work for the publishers rather than the authors.

The zealots don't just materialize. They are created by conditions, and the conditions in this case were created by Big Publishing.

While there was a trend over here in Australia for fewer publishing houses to accept unsolicited subs, now it's going the other way with the biggest houses opening their doors for specific times each month for writers to submit directly to them. It's a non-frills affair with writers requested to email their work but not to expect a response if unsuccessful.

Despite this current trend, I can't foresee the system changing terribly much even with the advent of ebooks and self-publishing, especially as bookstores and libraries usually don't stock self-published work. And for an array of other reasons as well, the majority of writers will still prefer to get their work out through a mainstream publisher, and the role of agents as gatekeepers and negotiators would still be needed. There's always a chance, though, that this role might diminish at some stages if self-publishing becomes more lucrative and enticing to a growing number of writers.

The artwork was a good fit! lol

I miss my agent since going indie. She got me my rights back to 10 of my novels, I give her a complimentary download of all the eBooks I write, and of course she is in touch with me whenever I get a royalty payment. Fortunately, most of her clients are still traditionally published (I was dropped by both my publishers and have found new life as an indie writer), so I don't think she has anything to worry about. She is also a contracts attorney, so agenting is not her livelihood. In general, I don't think that agents with existing clients are in trouble because traditional publishing is still very much alive, but I think they will have to get creative in terms of getting new clients, perhaps, as has been suggested, by approaching indie authors with good sales numbers.

I have to agree with Peter and Mira. The people exhausting you have had bad experiences or have some reason to feel negative. Even if that negativity is completely unjustified (and I can't think that it is), we all know perception is half the battle.

I am not anti-traditional publishing or agents, but I have some friends who have written really good books. They have agents but can't get published. I'm not sure if it's the state of the industry or the fact that their agents are inept, but it makes me frustrated for them.

Unfortunately, none of them are seriously considering self-publishing at this point. I believe their books would be popular, but "traditional publishing" is not letting them in.

I am about to start submitting my first novel and quite frankly, I feel like I might get an agent, but I'll probably never be published traditionally. From what I've seen from the outside, it does seem as though agents are much more interested in being cozy with a publisher than in advancing a particular author. Perhaps that's completely incorrect, but it seems as though many people feel that way. (Even the people I know who are published authors are really close with their editors--not at all with their agents.)

Nathen if you want to see anti self publishing, check out the comments here about Goodkinds decision to self publish.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/52532-terry-goodkind-to-self-publish-next-novel.html

Nathan said: "The idea that agents are working for publishers' interests is propaganda."

Seriously? So a literary agency could decide to take on only wonderfully written novels and refuse to take on any inferior commercial writing because their hands aren't tied in any way by the demands of the big publishing houses? The literary agencies tell the publishers what they will and will not submit to them, what will and won't be marketed to readers? Or, honestly, isn't it the other way around? I'm not sure how you can say it's propaganda to express the viewpoint that literary agencies are paid by the publishing houses and therefore are beholding to them. For years, agents have been telling many writers that their books are wonderfully written, but won't sell enough copies, meaning enough copies to satisfy the big publishing houses' requirements. Many of those same authors went on to self-publish those same books and made plenty of money. I guess you could rephrase "agents are working for publishers' interests" with "agents are working for those writers who will satisfy publishers' interests" if it makes you feel better, but calling the first statement propaganda doesn't make it untrue. It seems to me that, in today's political climate, whenever someone labels something "propaganda," it's just a code word for turning off the discussion, bringing it down to the level of, "Is not...Is, too...Nunh Uhhh." For years now, special interests have been saying that global warming is also "propaganda," but the Earth just keeps getting warmer anyway. Calling global warming "propaganda" doesn't make it untrue.

TYPO: meant "beholden," not "beholding."

-Anon at 9:22 PM

I think their role will be more limited.

mira-

I know you're familiar with psychology, so you are also probably familiar with confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out information that confirms your pre-existing beliefs and discarding anything that is contrary to that. I would ask you to examine your confirmation bias because I feel that you discount the things I'm saying on this subject.

I've been on every side of this business - I've been an author querying and getting rejected, I've been a literary agent, now I'm out of the business, I've been traditionally published and I'm probably going to self-publish someday. I have plenty, plenty of frustrations with traditional publishing, but I also don't let those frustrations blind me to the fact that the industry is made up of very smart people working for the love of books (it's certainly not for the pay) and doing what they think is best for the future of the business.

Is there some truth to what anti-traditional publishing zealots are saying? Absolutely! I've never argued otherwise.

Yes, the industry needs to get with the times. Yes, there are clauses in contacts that are onerous. Yes, 25% net is too low for a digital royalty. Yes, the industry sometimes treats authors like pests. Yes, it's frustrating to send a query and have it go unanswered. All true.

Where I get frustrated is when those valid points become religion for some people and leads them to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Traditional publishing is not a bed of roses, but it's not a den of thieves either.

When anti-traditional publishing becomes a religion, no amount of "I hear you, you have some valid points, here's where I think we agree, here's where I think we disagree" is going to persuade people. It's not rational at that point. And that's where I think a lot of people have ended up, not because of personal experiences with many of the things they're angry about, but because people have let their frustration with the querying and traditional publication process cloud their perspective.

There are some things self-publishing is better for. There are some things traditional publishing is better for. There really can be peace in our time.

Peter-

But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire.

I don't actually think most of the conditions people are frustrated with have much to do with "Big Publishing" at all, but with the funnel. And that funnel exists because up until now there were a finite number of books that could physically exist in a bookstore. Life in the funnel completely sucks. There are too many good books for too few slots, and that influences everything else - there are more agented books than can be bought by publishers, and there are way, way, way more unagented books than can be repped by agents. So there's a whole lot of rejection at every stage of the process, and by its very nature it's frustrating.

That's thankfully changing with self-publishing, but as long as traditional publisher publish only a finite amount of books, welcome to the funnel. It's not fun.

anon@9:22-

Agents take on books they think they can sell to publishers. That is their job. It's a business. Agents make more money if they get better deals for the authors, e.g. if they're willing to get a publisher to pay more, which is at the publisher's expense.

They're not beholden to publishers, they're beholden to their clients. The better deal the client gets the more money the agent makes. Their interests are aligned.

Nathan, unfortunately I can't respond from my work computer because it will send to spam. Typing on my little I phone won't work for me to adequately address your comment. So I'll respond this evening. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you!

"But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative."

That was intentional.

The point in using it that way (in the specific places I did) was to invoke the emotion while trying to illustrate how the Zealots feel. (Zealot itself is a loaded term. So... Hey, Mom, Nathan started it!)

That is, when I say Big Publishing, it's a shorthand that invokes all the bad aspects of the publishing industry that the Zealots don't like. The problem is not with the pejorative use but with the fact that it makes no distinction between the good and the bad. It does make distinction between the big and the not-big, however.

Which is exactly how I feel any time a friend of mine gets all up in my facebook about Big Banks. They don't hate "banking," they just hate "Big Banks." Which includes me, even though I personally am as far removed from the bad done by Big Banks as can possibly be.

The fact that there are Zealots who lump the good in with the bad and then get loud about it does not change the fact that there's bad. If there was no bad, there would be no zealots. Which was my original point. And which you have stated time and again, both in posts and comments. So actually we agree.

The subtle difference is that Zealots tend to be most angry about and target those they think have the most power and influence and elitism. Because that's where the biggest bad is. I think the Zealots don't hate "traditional publishing," they hate "Big Publishing."

For my own personal part, I agree with you. My frustration (until recently) was with the funnel. Self-publishing eliminated the funnel, and my frustration went away. As you've pointed out, we all need to understand our own motivations and do what is right for us individually. My motivations are served beautifully by self publishing.

More recently, though, I've become frustrated with the ongoing turf war between traditional publishing and Amazon. Here, "traditional publishing" means something different. It includes publishers, agents, and independent booksellers. Almost anyone who isn't Amazon or a self-published author, as a matter of fact. And there are a lot of anti-Amazon Zealots out there...

Peter-

Yeah, definitely agree that some of the hostility to Amazon in some traditional publishing bastions is extreme. You know what Yoda said about fear...

Also agree that the "bigness" and power makes publishing an easy target.

Okay we pretty much agree.

Nathan said: "But even look at your own phrasing - you're saying "Big Publishing" as a pejorative. If someone from traditional publishing started calling self-publishers "The Unwashed" or even "Little Publishing" can you imagine the resulting umbrage? The entire country might catch fire."

You've seriously got to be kidding me. Nathan, to use a term you directed at Mira, I would say that you have a huge confirmation bias. It has become very clear to me that you do not even remotely understand most of the arguments against big publishing or even where the term comes from. Big publishing companies are labeled "big" because they are huge conglomerates. When you suggest that "The Unwashed" could be an equivalent term for self-publishing companies, your bias shines through. "The Unwashed" is the same type of prejudicial term often used against minorities, calling them "unwashed," "dirty," "diseased," etc. "Big" means "extremely wealthy;" "unwashed" puts people in their place. And you know what? The country hasn't started on fire. Who cares what you suggest as a pejorative term for self-publishers? Who cares? The point that many self-published authors have tried to make, but it falls on deaf ears, is that authors often do much better after leaving traditional publishing for self-publishing and it makes them kind of angry that they wasted so many years believing the myths they were told by big publishing. If you do plan on self-publishing some day, you might want to keep in mind that alienating self-published authors isn't a great way to introduce yourself to that community. The fact that you treat the big publishing houses' side of the DOJ lawsuit with much more respect than you treat self-publishing as a whole speaks volumes about how little respect you have for self-published authors as a community. You always tread very carefully when talking about traditional publishers, but you treat self-publishing the way that prejudiced people treat any minority, your opinion is shaped by negative examples in that group. Not all self-published authors are angry or loud. Many are happy - quite happy, actually, because the publishing path they've chosen is a lot of fun.

anon-

I think it was clear I wasn't actually calling anyone anything. But that's a lot of umbrage for what was posed as a hypothetical. I think you proved my point.

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed? By focusing on one term, the term "big publishing," the discussion has narrowed down to whether or not that's a pejorative term. Fox News does this brilliantly, by the way. A linguist once pointed out that by controlling language, Fox News completely takes the focus off the real issues. I'm just waiting for self-publishing to be labeled "socialist," than we'll have the kind of discussion we're used to.

anon-

I feel like you're trolling at this point - if you wish to continue this discussion I'm happy to do so but only if you're non-anonymous.

I wasn't trolling, but I can see where you might think so. I'm going to opt out of the rest of the discussion, as it has become a bit one-sided.

I think they will, but there's going to be a painful period of adjustment. The self-pub model, once it gains critical mass with traditionally published writers (which may take a while, since I assume many of them are chained to contracts which would necessarily limit their ability to adapt as quickly as novice authors) start publishing, that will accelerate more quickly.

I was not a fan of the whole self-pub thing (how else to describe), until I went back and looked at my contracts, and read That Guy's Blog. Stripped of the rancor towards traditional publishing, what he says makes sense: the archaic royalty periods, the gross financial exploitation of writers who aren't front list (mid-list, you're essentially self-publishing, at this point) and the countless other ways authors are being taken for a ride, the 30/70 split is clear, pays in a timely fashion, and well... what else?

The digital / device element is simply too large to ignore at this point, and unless they have some magical way to control it, that genie isn't going back into the bottle. So they have a while for literary fiction. Genre fiction, it's already gone: people don't seem to care about imprints, or houses, or any of that.

This question is a good one, and one I've given thought to, but I can't help but question if it works as a one size fits all. Prestige authors (or those with that perceived cachet) are supported by houses' less glamorous lines: what happens when lady's fiction, for example, has completely migrated to digital, and whatever subsidiary of Random House that drew upon that revenue stream, no longer can? Do agents then become hyper-hyper-hyper selective, only repping prize winners? In which case, how do they prevent their client lists from atrophying?

Peter and Nathan, do you realize that the discussion has now fallen to the level at which nothing of substance is being discussed?

must... not... take.. the bait...

I am anon 4:44 & would add ... people don't tend to think about this, but sometimes an agent's slowless (to read a mss, submit it, return notes), works in the writer's favor, forcing or provoking revisions that this fever for instant publishing (and crashing down those gatekeepers' walls) circumvents. For people like Amanda Hocking who thrive in the world of series, producing as much possible makes sense - the writing isn't (sorry, not to be a hater, but she as much admits this herself) as good, but her as a business needs more attention than a slower, or less "productive" writer would. And though I'm sure her agent has a game plan, it's probably a different one than a literary novelist in the deep south who one the National Book Award.

another question for Nathan: given the money that authors can make digitally, yet the attachment to prestige of MSM pub, do you foresee a world in which one can have both? perhaps using pseudonyms? and did you read the NYMagazine interview with Barry Dillers in which he retorted that new technologies (he was speaking about tv antennaes that suck off MSM broadcast signals) don't replace but grow up alongside existing technologies? Is that co-existing model valid for publishing, or would you say TV is apples to oranges? (And back to the original query, if they can coexist, how do you foresee agent/agencies fitting into that sort of blended future?)

I am anony 4:44 & 4:53: whoever is disrupting this convo, please stop. this question is too important to some of us to wade through off topic posts. Thank you for being considerate of others.

anon-

I think there will be blurring all over the place, at least if the author keeps an open mind to opportunity. There will be (and already are) authors who go with traditional publishers for some books and self-publish others, there will be authors who start out self-published and move entirely to traditional and vice versa, there will be authors who self-publish their e-books and work with a traditional publisher for print books.... there's basically an infinite number of combinations.

I'm not sure I still quite see how agents will fit into the self-publishing process, unless they're able to cultivate a relationship with distributors to lend their books preferred promotional status. But short of that, I think the value add as an overarching consultant is somewhat murky. It's only going to get easier to self-publish and I think it will be tricky for an agent to add value in a way that scales.

But I think agents will continue to still exist for the biggest authors who have many different types of deals to negotiate, from traditional print deals to foreign rights to subrights. The biggest authors will always have room for negotiation, and an agent can add a lot of value there.

But who knows - things keep right on changing.

okay, how would you have that conversation (not you, per se, but a generic "you") about self-pub/trad pub tracks with your agent? in a way that wasn't threatening, and didn't upend the author/agency agreement which (assuming they're standardized) is an agreement for the agent to rep literary work the author produces? and if the 2.99-3.99 is the price most people are willing to pay for digital books, is the 15% commission appropriate? (and how does Amazon's inevitable collection of taxes affect that equation?) ... please, please speak to some of the dollar elements of this: I feel like this convo's been limited by "feelings" and tho I respect everyone's, I'm focused on finances

you've spoken/written before about big authors, & their need for contracts but what about an agent & foreign rights/ translations? it's one thing to upload to the domestic market, but other than English language countries (amazon uk), how would one even begin to navigate the global market?

I wanted to add something about an agent's value: they're schooled in thinking tactically/strategically in a way that, cleaver as I am, am not. I've noticed, too, that my agent consults with the other agents, and I wonder if people know you don't get just one agent, but benefit of experienced people you may never meet or speak to.

I haven't listened to this, but the paper (imagine that) version of Wasserman's piece in this weeks, "The Nation" (supplement with two others), is very interesting and worth a read.

http://www.thenation.com/audio/168196/steve-wasserman-amazoncoms-takeover

Nathan, so, I wasn't familiar with the concept of confirmation bias, so that's interesting. I'll keep that in mind. Please let me know if you feel I am doing that in this conversation, or others, too, if you want.

I'd like to ask for some more information.

I'm really sorry you've felt discounted by me. I'd like to make sure you feel I am valuing what you think and share. Does the content of the last post to me cover it? Or is there more?

The second question is: what do you mean by "religion"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that concept when it applies to anti-traditional writers. I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm trying to forumlate a response to you, but I'd like some clarification first.

Thanks.

What I think is happening is the same that happened with trading stocks, you know have the capacity to do it yourself without a stock broker. If you think of an agent as a stock broker making a transaction for you, then think of it as a premium of service. While stock brokers still exist today, we need less of them.

For now, I'm leaning toward "morphing" into something else. I also think Agents may have to rethink where there clients may be coming from. They may have to rely on more than the inbox or the slush pile to find their next author.

I also think there needs to be an alternative to writers conferences. Writers who live in the vicinity of the conference or writers who can afford to fly to a conference make up a limiting pool. Many, many writers will never get the opportunity to impress anyone in person.

Last, agents will have to take their blinders off. That narrow focus they use to choose their next project may have to include good writing - not just flavor of the month.

In today's world, authors have got more resources on their hands. A lot of authors take to the internet, build their own websites and start establishing online platforms where they can promote their works themselves, works that they might have self-published or published the traditional way. I believe the role of the agent after its boom in the last two decades is shrinking back again to how it used to be. Soon, publishers will start to get more contactable as a consequence to the influx of self-published books. When this happens agents will become optional to short-on-time authors, and a luxury to the more established ones.

Nathan,

I believe agents will survive and prosper if they can develop some empathy and compassion for writers whom are hard working people. To consider submitting a query to an agent whom says in advance, "I will respond if I am interested" I do not think so. For they must come to realize that they would not be in business if it were not for writers. You were always courteous and responded promptly when you were an agent.

@Daniel, not to be obnoxious, but what exactly is wrong with, "I will respond if I'm interested"? A no is still a no. I'm consistently amazed by the unspoken sense of entitlement underlying the believe, "they must come to realize ... were it not for writers." True, but 15% of nothing is still nothing. People's expectations of what they "feel" agents should do blows my mind.

So, I took my questions down....
Nathan, honestly, I feel like I'm stuck in an argument with you I keep trying to end.


However, I am going to continue because I always cut you off when we debate, which I think is unfair. So, here I go. You can decide to respond or not, but knowing myself, I'll probably consider deleting this comment tomorrow, unless it becomes part of a conversation, because I dont' really have perspective on it. Besides, I don't care if this comment is made public or not. I'm talking to you, Nathan.


So, I probably should start by reflecting your above statements back to you, but I think that would just annoy you at this point, so I'm going to go right to my perspective.


This is why I speak out. I believe that strong pressure needs to be put on publishers so they will change their practices towards writers. I don't believe that they will change these practices out of their own initiative. To put it in very clear terms, I think that labor needs to stand up for itself in order for management to change.

I have no issue with those who work INSIDE publishing. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I have an issue with those who work at the TOP of publishing. The people who are very rich and powerful and probably want to keep it that way.

To give an even better example, I have serious problems with oil companies, but I'm sure there are wonderful people who work in them.

I also have no issue with writers who want to work in traditional publishing. If they think it's best for them, that's great.


In terms of reform, I'm fine if publishers adapt and survive, if they do so while offering better terms to writers. But I'm not attached to that solution.


So, I know that you don't agree the system is exploitive and needs pressure to change, Nathan, but I wish you would understand that I do. I'm sorry if that makes you feel I'm discounting your opinion. That's not my intention, I just see it differently, Nathan.

I will say that I had already decided, this weekend, to stop saying anti-traditional publishing statements on your blog. I've decided it's rude. It would be like going to a vegetarian's website and talking ad infinitum about the barbeque last week. I'm sorry if my statements here have put pressure on you. I guess there is a part of me that wants to change your mind. But I think it's time to let go of that.

So, that's my response to your post above. I will respond if you want to continue, I won't cut off the debate. And if you don't, that's okay, whatever works best for you.

Oh, I guess saying I feel stuck in an argument I keep trying to end is really unfair given how provocative I am.

That is unfair. I'm sorry. I just hate feeling as though we are at odds, so whenever you respond, I just want to say "let's agree to disagree." Maybe that's trying to dodge accountability. Sorry.

Good for you, Peter, answering in a way that is non-reactive and witty. Always admire you, Nathan, for keeping a calm head in any debate. A debate is always about issues and shouldn't become about the debators. Not everyone is good at expressing their opinions, but everyone has the right to express his/her opinion without being insulted for having that opinion. Disagreeing with the opinion without finding fault with the one expressing it is always a win-win - in my opinion. ;)

Kudos to you, Mira. I feel exactly the same as you. There's nothing wrong with questioning the questionable practices of very rich and powerful people at the top of huge multinational conglomerates. The DOJ has done the same in regard to most of the huge publishing houses, and kudos to them as well. Like you said, that has nothing to do with all the wonderful people who work for and with those corporations, most of them being paid only a small pittance compared to the huge profits made by those at the top. No one should feel guilty or apologetic for the type of stand you're taking.

But are the biggest publishers operating on huge profit margins? Are they 'greedy corporations' with profits going mainly to Board members while being ruthlessly stingy with their authors? Do any of us know this for a fact or is it heresay? I've always had the impression that the book biz operated on a slim profit margin with only the occasional best sellers keeping most companies going. Wasn't it Houghton and Mifflin the latest publishing company to file for bankruptcy? Publishers are going under, financially, all the time.

It is a very competitive and risky business, perhaps now more than ever.

*Houghton Mifflin* I meant - sorry.

Wendy - Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been owned by and merged with a number of different companies. For example, in 2001, under the name Houghton Mifflin, it was acquired by the French media giant Vivendi for $2.2 billion. In 2003, Vivendi sold Houghton Mifflin to the private equity investment groups Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital for $1.28 billion. Recently, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt filed for bankruptcy in order to receive help in dealing with billions of dollars of debt that was about to come due and worked out a plan to have $3 billion of its debt reduced to zero. Here's information on it: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Files For Bankruptcy, Claims $3 Billion In Debt. Now, does this sound like the kinds of financial dealings agents or editors or other workers farther down the food chain deal with in their daily lives? I don't think so. And that's just a very tiny mention of all the mergers and acquisitions and financial dealings in which Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has been involved.

Thanks for that info, Anon. Very interesting, actually. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs, but according to Wikipedia this company is not strictly a publishing company but has - over the years - owned a diverse number of companies including MP3.com, Canal+ Technologies, Vinci Construction, Univeral Studies, etc. And also according to Wiki, in 2002 Viveldi was fighting to stave off bankruptcy, itself. I think your point is, though, that Viveldi considered that H.M. was worth purchasing at 2.2b so there must be quite some money to be made by this publishing company. However, maybe their assumption wasn't totally correct, because as you noted they sold it again, fairly quickly, for almost half of what they paid for it. But 1.6b is still a lot of money though.

Actually, in support of your view, Anon, I came across this article about Penguin Books U.K:

'Penguin UK had its best ever year in 2010 as parent company Pearson reported a profits increase of 21% to £857m.

For the year ending 31st December, sales at Pearson were £5.66bn, up 10% on 2009. Sales at Penguin were £1.05bn, up 6% on the previous year. Adjusted operating profit was up 26% to £106m. Pearson attributed this to an "outstanding" US performance, driven by a record number of bestsellers, increased market share and expansion in emerging digital platforms and formats.'

Apparently in 2011 there was a slight dip in profits, but in 2012 there was a big leap in ebook profits, worldwide for this publisher:

'E-book sales represented 12% of all Penguin revenue worldwide in 2011; in the U.S., e-book sales accounted for more than 20% of Penguin’s revenue. While overall revenues at the company were up 1%, profits were up 8%, according to a statement from the company, suggesting that e-book sales deliver a higher profit margin.'

It seems Penguin are doing alright, then *g* I chose Penguin because it's the most well-known and successful publishing co. here in Australia. If the figures for this company are anything to go by, then the publishing biz isn't going too badly.

I'm just tossing ideas around trying to fathom things out. I really appreciate your reply, Anon. Thank you.

Wendy - Fascinating information. Thanks. When people working away in the lower levels of these huge conglomerates get laid off, they're just being used to boost overall profit for those at the top. What I don't understand is when the struggling workers defend the conglomerate as though it's feeling the same kind of struggle rather than just experiencing a pause in steep incline of huge profit.

Anon 11:37. Thank you! I'm glad we agree. It was really nice to read your supportive comments. :)

Just to clarify, I'm not apologizing for my beliefs, but more for trying to bash Nathan over the head with them.

Part of the problem is that one way to put pressure on the people at the top is by putting pressure on the people inside by confronting practices. I'm still learning when and how it's best to do that!

Mira - so glad you contributed to the discussion!

Hear, hear...and amen. This genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. And that's a very good thing. Too many wonderful authors out there that keep getting kicked to the curb -- and now have their own voice, their own platform, and are doing quite well. We may never be rich, but then being trad published isn't a guarantee of steady money coming in either. I'm happy with my choice and I'll take my chances. I've nothing to lose and everything to gain. And Indie Publishing is not going to go away or lose the respect that it's been owed for a very long time.

Yup. It's cheap and easy and getting cheaper and easier, and the stigma that once went with "self-publishing" is diminishing, not because there's no trash coming out, but because good things are.

They said the same thing about web-serial shows, that they would eventually lose their popularity, and with Hulu and YouTube they are actually more popular than ever. I think people are essentially pragmatic and will continue to use what mediums are available and effective.

I think self-publishing is here to stay. To many agents and publishers are not giving new authors a chance. And so more and more people have to do the self-publishing route. Which isn't a bad thing I don't think. It gets their names out there, it gets their stories out there. It gives us as readers new and wonderful stories.

We're still a long way from e-reader saturation, so there's still room for growth. It feels more like the rocky early stages.

eBooks are the future, and the future has arrived. As for self=publishing, the Amanda Hawkings of the world have proven it is a viable option.

Thanks Nathan! I self-published last year and have a new book coming out soon. I certainly hope you're right. I guess we never know what will happen in the future, but I know that after a long haul with an agent/without an agent and no sales with the big 6, I was ready to self-publish and see if my books with "no market," actually had a market.

So far the answer is yes. But, I realize things could change...for now, it feels good to write and get my work out there. I couldn't have imagined how good the "stamp of approval," from readers buying and liking my book would feel. That was always the end goal for me, to have readers, not just to have books that had run the trad. pub. gauntlet. Thank you, Readers! That's my mantra these days.

That felt like a warm hug.... so needed on today, my half-century mark. Gives me the kick I need to drag out all my notes on my life in Italy and get to work. Thanks!

I call it choices. Now authors have many more.

Amen, Nathan. Books are part of our culture. As e-reader technology and deliver ability modes expand, books will remain with us. So will the self-published authors who are willing and able to work steadily on their books and take advantage of easy upload and distribution processes. I do believe there are some who wish there would be a bubble...but that's a comment for another blog post.

More than folks writing books, there is no end to readers! People don't have a threshold for the number of books they're willing to read in a lifetime ... well, people who aren't Seinfeld characters don't anyway.

No one reads a single book in their lifetime. If JK Rowling writes 100 books, I'll read every one so long as I have eyes. Self-published, big-published or no. Same goes for any author I enjoy.

So why then, should there be a cap on the number books that can be written if there is no cap on the number of books that can be consumed?

Your logic makes sense to me. I think blogs are quite different from books, and some of the decline in the blogoshpere can probably be attributed to repetition of content (especially in writing blogs) as much as other social media siphoning away readers. Can we have just one more post about dialogue tags and adverbs? (NOTE: You do a good job at keeping things fresh here, Nathan, which may explain your loyal following.)

Many authors are taking the indie route seriously; self-publishing is not as much a vanity project anymore as it is an entrepreneurial effort. Indie authors are a new wave of small business owners. I think it's a great representation of the American dream. What's even greater is that the traditional route still exists for those that prefer it.

Opportunities, people. They are everywhere if you look for them.

Check out my blog.

Check out my book.

Follow me on Twitter
rjdaley101071

There may not be a bubble in the sense that writers are going to get bored and go do something else, but there may be one in the receptiveness of the reader. As the glut of self-published books continues to grow (and I agree it will!) I think the reader will become more discerning out of nessecity. It is a buyers market if you will.

I, as a reader, do not have to spend my time reading a poorly edited book. So as my demand decreases due to a natural desire to be selective about what I spend my valuable time reading. Wouldn't it naturally cause a slow down in self publishing as only those commited to producing a quality product will continue to self publish? It seems to me readers will begin to sift the chafe from the wheat causing fewer dreamers to spew out a book and post it for the world to read.

I agree self-publishing is here to stay, but I highly doubt that the market will continue to support the glut of books we are currently seeing. I hope not, as it would be nice to see self-publishing recieve its rightful place as one of three platforms for any successful author in any genre.

I think self-publishing is here to stay, but I still believe 99% of the people who try it will make absolutely nothing. And these same people would have made absolutely nothing in traditional publishing, either, but will probably have put out less money up front to try. There is no evidence people are willing to read twice as much all of a sudden. There's a limited supply of eyeballs.

"Get used to the self-publishing boom. We're just getting started."

I completely agree!

I scanned the Guardian article and the response, and although I do think there are some who are jumping on the self-pubishing band wagon as a "get rick" thing, I think those articles are missing the point of what is happening in the world right now.

We are not seeing a "gold rush" boom, we are seeing a re-distribution of the labor force.

As we move from paper to digital, labor is moving with it.

With paper, the only "employment" available to authors was to "sell" their work to publishers who then sold it to distributors.

With digital, the options of "employment" for authors have opened up. Authors can choose to continue the old model, or they can sell directly to the distributors (Amazon, etc.), or they can even go it on their own, if they want.

I think there is a natural tendency for labor to move in the direction of the best working conditions and compensation model.

As long as Amazon continues to offer the best "employment" options, the movement of authors to that labor model (self-publishing) is pretty much assured.

Whether that continues, will really depend. If legacy publishers matched or exceeded Amazon's terms, the movement toward self-publishing might signifantly slow.

This part is hard to predict, since it depends on what they major players decide to do.

Although I will say that I think self-publishing is here to stay, regardless. There are some authors who may value freedom over any other working condition, and they will most likely keep self-publishing alive and thriving, even if legacy publishers step up their game.

What may be needed for the successful future of epublishing is some system to weed out all the "noise" in the ebook world -- in other words, the mountains of crap that crowd out the well-written books. There will need to be some sort of gatekeepers to divert the crap to the dungheap. Traditional publishing has agents and editors and marketing gurus; epublishing is going to have to come up with something that produces a similar result. Otherwise, breaking out your ebook from the pack is only going to get harder than it already is, as those of us who have epublished have already experienced.

Sorry to add to my post, but the other thing that will keep self-publishing alive is unlimited access. There is no cap on how many people can publish. This is what you talked about, Nathan, and I completely agree.

I agree, Nathan. It perplexes me when people talk about a 'self-publishing bubble', because clearly, books aren't going anywhere. And with e-books (also not going anywhere), self-publishing is the most accessible form of publishing for many people.

I agree that self-publishing is here to stay.

But I think those who self-publish just because they think it's an easy way of making money will realize it's not so, and give up.

That will leave the rest of us, too many still, who are cursed with the need to write.

And as Susan put it, the problem is there are not more readers than before. And those who read won't read more.

So self-publishing is here to stay, but, unfortunately, that doesn't mean writers can make a living this way.

I want to agree with you, Nathan, but I have to be honest and say that I have never bought a self-published book. I'm sure I'm missing out on some great works, but my (wrong? outdated? uneducated?) assumption when an author self-publishes is that they have done so because they grew tired of rejections from the traditional publishing world. Until that stigma changes for the general public, I'm afraid the majority of self-published writers will continue to struggle to be taken seriously.

Bubble = Marketing term.

Usually when too many people rush to board a ship, it sinks. If the bubble bursts, some other latest trend will replace it.

I like choices.

As for the blog bubble, some will survive, some won't. I agree with Rick D.'s comments about repetition.

I don't believe self-publishing is a bubble. Blogging was just the next new toy. Self-publishing is where writers have increasingly had to go as publishers narrow their sights tighter around the Next Sure Thing.
Publishing has been shaken up and is trying to figure itself out. To that end, I hope self-publishing matures quickly and finds a process that creates credibility. I find myself nervous to purchase self-published books. Which makes me nervous to publish one.

That was sane and sensible; thanks.

BTW, you find the cutest pictures!

www.VermillionRoadPress.com

I agree with you. We're not in a bubble. We're at the beginning of a revolution.

I agree with Nathan -- self-publishing is no bubble. Plenty of authors take self-publishing very seriously, and the process is similar to setting up your own business. You don't need to go through traditional publishing houses to create a professional product. You can hire your own cover designer, and actually control how your novel is portrayed artistically. You can hire an editor, and because of recent cutbacks you may well hire someone who has worked for the big six. You can even pay to get on blog tours or handle other marketing aspects. The difference between self-publishing and traditional publishing is about control. You control how much you invest in yourself, and as a reward you also reap the profits. Nathan has done the math before, there's a good chance that a mid-list author would come out ahead. Self-pubbing allows writing to have an entrepreneurial spirit!

I feel this blog has changed directions. I remember when it was more partisan for traditionally published.

I respectfully disagree.

I think we are about to see a boom indeed. A cataclysmic explosion of desperate e-authors in the next couple of years--who will ultimately exit the business when they realize no money is to be had.

I find it hard to believe most writers are not fame and money motivated.

If you are not, I congratulate you. You are amongst the 1% of us who do it freely and without expectation.

As I peruse my Twitter followers' posts, nearly EVERY one of the ebooks I see mentioned are a giveaway. Not a one-hour, or a one-day giveaway, but weeks on end.

The VAST abundance of free material is encroaching rapidly on the living of the few who are trying to actually make money.

I am an economist. I realize we use loss-leaders to generate enthusiasm, but we are not doing this. Loss-leaders still have a price, albeit at a loss to the producer. But this is making no business sense.

When was the last time you stepped into the cereal aisle of the supermarket and saw half of them being given away? Why should I bother buying?

We are creating a free book landscape where one can accept any number of books, at any time, thus creating a highly unlikely branding of authors. This, in other industries, is referred to as price-fixing--but at what price? Zero!

Allow me to share this link from a literary agent: http://bit.ly/A96qoq

This is exactly what is happening.

I am getting bombarded by free ebooks. Why should I pay for ebooks anymore?

I ask you, yes you, since when did we stop competing on quality, and started selling based on price?

Promotion is a silver bullet, not a religion.

Respectfully,

Rashad.

I think of the flood of self publishing as equivalent to the sudden flood of personal computers. What happened there was that when critical mass was reached, the buzz became "customization". I think that is what will happen with respect to self publishing. For many, the cost barriers are coming down, so you don't have to write a mass market novel to be successful. You just have to identify a group of people that you speak to and publish customized work for your particular group. You will still make money---a reasonable amount but not the runaway riches of a mass market blockbuster. It will be a living, and readers will be happy because they will be getting books closer to what they want.

This is a great time for writers. They finally have control over their careers and are not at the mercy of the old ways. It's great and it will only get better as time goes.

So agree with you. And there's nothing wrong with people independently publishing their stories.

Some stories are good that just don't make it the traditional way. And if people have the time and money to get their story published and market it, that's great. Because they are just actualizing their dream a different way. We have to be careful not be prejudiced against anyone path to publication.

I'm on the fence about how I feel about self-publishing. I've self-published two collection books, but I only put them out there for mainly friends and family to read. My novels, I hold securely and have been patiently waiting for a publisher/agent to embrace them. I know self-publishing has come a long way and is continuing to grow, but something old-fashioned in me still clings to the traditional route. Give me another three years with no agent and/or no publisher, and I may be singing a different tune, though.

I agree that it's not a bubble, but I do think that self/indie publishing is going to go through a lot of changes in the next few years. A lot of authors seem to think they will be the next Amanda Hocking with one book. Most of those authors will quietly go back to their day jobs, and we'll never hear from them again. The authors who will find self-publishing success will be the ones who have the patience and work ethic to stick with it for the long haul, producing book after book with great content (and great editing). There is plenty of talent out there, and this really is an exciting time to be a writer.

i think we're at the beginning of something new, much like musicians were when they realized that they didn't record labels and could do their own thing about 5 years ago. I've just self-published my first book, not because I didn't think it wasn't good enough to go the traditional route, but because I wanted the control of doing it myself, on my own time, and with my own ideas. Is it a lot of work? Absolutely. But so far, it has been immensely rewarding and I'm looking forward to being an indie entrepreneur.

Self publishing has offered writers a fantastic, not hitherto experienced opportunity. Especially self publishing ebooks. This is the dawn of the age of selfpublisharius.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "bubble," but I do agree with others who've posted that many will try it and only try it once.

SP takes a lot of work to do well. Those who look to it as a business endeavor will find it easier and easier and increasingly welcoming. Those who are hoping for a get rich quick scheme, or a way to suddenly have millions read their novel...eh. They'll probably decide their energy is best spent elsewhere.

So, I'm not sure it will just keep increasing and increasing. Sooner or later, enough people will have self-published that the stories people are hearing aren't the Amanda Hockings but the Jane Smith from their church group who put out her NaNoWriMo fictionalized memoir and didn't make back the cost she paid for her goodreads ad. So perhaps then folks will step back, think, and see self-publishing as the business it really is and think for a moment about whether they want to get involved.

I think it is great that self publishing is so easily accessible and affordable, however I wish authors would spend money on better covers and editing. I just downloaded five self published books on my kindle and only one of them is polished enough. The rest are formatted poorly, have horrible covers, and desperately in need of editing.

I loved reading this today. It's something I'm considering doing for a few shorter pieces of work, more for the personal satisfaction than anything else.

Agree that technological model (or "platform" or "channel" or "market") has changed forever. However, there is and will be a bubble effect in volume of content and players. New players will come and go quickly. Some old players will go, slowly or quickly.

At end of day, the lucrative end of the industry is the same: GREAT PRODUCT + GREAT MARKETING. How the product looks, how the product is marketed, and who shares the rewards are all in flux.

Great post, and I fully agree with you, Nathan. I did the unthinkable one year ago and decided to start a publishing company (under a brand I have always dreamed of building), publish my first novel THE BREEDERS, and see where the experience took me. Man oh man, it has been incredible. Not only did I learn more about publishing than I ever thought I would know, but I now have a new day job because of it (at a small indie/hybrid press here in Minneapolis). I will be building their eBook department, designing print books, and teaching authors social media. I would never have come to this point had I still been twiddling my thumbs, waiting for my dream agent to take me on.

A few things: self-publishers absolutely must invest in their books to make them matter and to keep this machine rolling. I think true self-publishers will only get smarter and savvier, and it really will change this industry. Two years ago, I never would have considered self-publishing. Now, I'm hard-pressed to pursue the "normal" option for my next projects. That said, the process of self-publishing was so extremely taxing, and it isn't for people who don't have the ambition or ability to grab it by the balls and run with it. I think there will eventually be a perfectly-accepted "breed" of self-published author who can gain respect on par with any other traditionally published author--the one who spends his or her time and money to do it right.

I'd like to see some stats that confirm the blog bubble is deflating. I have five and plan to have about 50 by the end of this year. What a great device to practice writing and hear how much you suck from people you don't know! Every writer should have at least one blog if not many of them.

But please don't confuse blooks, I mean blocks, I mean books and blogs. A book you spend a lot of time working on so it is ready to be seen for others, a blog you spit out in chunks and hope each post is worth reading. If not that's ok, you just post again tomorrow. A book can cost you some money to publish on your own, where a blog can be done for #10 a year for hosting, $100 a year for hosting, and 15 minutes of your time each day.

You'll be lucky if your SP book breaks even, where putting ads on your blog can earn you some extra cash each month.

My point is that most writers will want to do both and they should. But talk to writers about self-publishing, and talk to an Internet consultant about blogging. Then talk to other writers about blogging so you get both sides of the story. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with a bubble, as in it's not something that's going to burst. I do believe we'll peak at some point, reach a saturation point, where the perception develops that self-publishing is not the viable career/make-a-living option they had thought. That 1% success rate will become common knowledge and become a deterrant. At this point, self-publishing is too new to have reached that.

Another aspect that I think will happen is that there will just be so many choices out there that it will overwhelm and readers will funnel to places where books have some curation value attached to them. In the end, we may just see things become much like publishing has been. If your work doesn't end up in a curated location, you will be ignored. Come to think of it, publishers might do well to really embrace the digital content and become curators beyond the limits of their contracted authors.

I don't have an ereader at this point, but I can say now that I won't wade through the thousands of choices on Amazon looking for something to read or B&N for that matter. I will got to places that I can trust to have pulled in books that are worth my time and money. If I want a new thriller to read, I'd want to go to Joe's Crime Shack site where they don't have everything under the sun, thrown up there by anyone who thinks they can write crime fiction. I'll go to the reviewers who are thoughtful in their choices. To me, places like Amazon are not ideal places for curation. There's no control over the process, as anyone can toss up a 5-star review or a 1-star one for that matter, who haven't even read the book. There's no trust there.

So, in the end I guess, I think this change in the industry will settle itself out. The bubble won't burst, but will probably gradually bleed out to a point of stability, and though the players may change, I'm not sure the structure will be a whole lot different. Because as wonderful as the rise of the amatuer is in the world of writing for people who want to write, readers will get to a point where they can't handle the flood. They'll want structure. They'll want the stability and convenience of trusted places to find stories that are worth their while. In the end, quality plus convenience will trump quantity. At least I hope so.

Anything that reaches outrageous proportions usually does, indeed, burst eventually. In the past few years I've seen more self-published authors give up and move on to something else than I've seen continue.

It was the same with the housing bubble. The hobby flippers lost and jumped ship. The serious investors bought with care, did not over-extend, and are sticking it out for the long haul.

I'm more curious about the social media bubble, based on ads. I have no idea whether or not it will last. (As I sit waiting for my invitation to join pinterest :)

Nathan,

Is a publishing civilian a failed literary agent?

David

David-

Totally, everyone who changes jobs failed at the last one, amiright?

Nathan

Nathan: I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

And Mira: I sort of agree with you, except I don't think a distribution of labor is exactly the right description.

Again, a brief history:

Prior to Guttenburg's invention of the printing press, Bibles were painstakingly reproduced by hand (and with illumination).

After the invention of the printing press, Bibles could be reproduced with less time and effort and on a much greater scale.

In 1920s Paris, a guy named Robert McAlmon and some friends purchased a printing press. McAlmon's "Contact Press" was born. On that press, he published a 300-copy run of "three stories and ten poems," Ernest Hemingway's first book--a collection. He also published Hemingway's "in our time," which was then handed to friends to bring to New York to try and find a "major" "traditional" publisher for it.

Boni & Liveright, a small printing partnership, agreed and signed Hemingway on--for an advance of $200, maybe something like $2,000 in today's dollars.

Not everyone has friends like Robert McAlmon. But no one else was publishing Hemingway, as he was too unknown, too young, too whatever it was that caused the majority of "traditional" publishers to not take a risk on him.

In short, if Hemingway had not had McAlmon as a friend, he might never have been published. If he'd never been published by McAlmon's Contact Press, he might never have come to Boni & Liveright's attention. If he'd never come to Boni & Liveright's attention, he might never have come to F. Scott Fitzgerald's attention...need I go on?

As the publicist for Melville House notes, tons of people have an idea they have a book in them, or that a book is their way to make their mark or leave something behind. It is an ego trip. Just like blogs, or social networking, or the idea that anyone actually might be interested in something you might have to say.

But the possibility exists--remote as it might be--that someone REALLY good, or maybe even new, inventive, creative, engaging and inspirational or merely emotionally moving MIGHT have been overlooked by traditional publishers because they could not take a risk or thought at the very least, this writer is not going to make a lot or enough money for us to justify the contract.

And for that writer, self-publishing, if you can't get a friend to publish you, has reached the point of virtually having a printing press in your home at your disposal. Painters don't need approval of someone to put their ideas on canvass. They just need to sell their paintings.

Book selling is, of course, another matter.

I agree with you that self-publishing isn't a bubble. Readers love it too much. :)

A bubble? Sounds like fear mongering.

What we are in is a time when folks don't need to lug around books that weight a ton. Electronic books are awesome!

As for this self-publishing thing, I think a lot of this has been caused by the publishers--changing up their advance payment schedules, paying less via the agency model, and holding off on purchasing new books while Borders imploded last year.

Plus, it's not incredibly difficult to produce an eBook with InDesign and some freelance artwork via artists found on Deviant Art.

I suspect we are in the midst of a bubble. It may be cheap and easy to self-publish, but it's difficult to make any real money from self-publishing. As more books flood the market, readers will become increasingly intolerant of poor editing, design and layout.

Some of those things will be made cheaper by software or online services, but good editing won't get any cheaper; the time spend starting to master the craft won't get shorter.

Just like the blogging boom, people are finding a reason to write and discovering some joy in it. However, many of the people who are excited by it now—when tales of million dollar sales are in the air and the sense that anybody and everybody is doing it—will find the limited returns (few readers, little or no money) outweigh their desire to keep at it.

I wonder how many blogs that came and went were full of poems and short stories? I know a lot of people who were writers who aren't now. Not a single one of them is less happy as a result.

I do think that in the next year or so that we will see the number of writers self-publishing books diminish. As people realize that it isn't easy and that it takes a lot of work to be successful going the self-publishing route, those writers who were only in it for the money will give up and go do something else.

Is it a bubble? Well it isn't like the dot com bubble or the housing bubble. It won't have a negative impact on the economy when the dilettantes go do something else.

I think the overall publishing scene both traditional and self-published will get better once those less serious writers give up and move on.

I don't think epublishing will go away. I don't think the bubble will burst but I do think there will be a pendulum swing. It will settle into a pattern but that first swing may be a doozy. Blogging may not be the craze like it was but I don't think blogging is going anywhere either, it's just settled into it's groove. Hope I wasn't too confusing. If not ignore me, I'm on pain medicine.

I had to laugh at the Guardian article.
There may be a bubble of these companies that make money on the hype of epublishing, but the idea that books and reading are part of a bubble ready to burst is silly.
I know lots of writers, some published and some unpublished, who work hard at writing. Some have been doing it for decades and some are new. They are driven by artistic passion not millions of dollars. They spend those long hours laboring over their manuscript because they are writers and it doesn't matter if they use a pen, typewriter, computer or stylus on clay tablet.

They people who read books want good books with no regard for any bubble.
The bursting epub bubble will only affect people who are moved by or invested in the hype. A perfect example is people who spend time writing about how it's all just a bubble ready to pop.

After the froth of every man jack horse writing his/her/its dream horror chick lit fantasy and the inevitable shenanigannery twixt trad and indie, the future for writers and writing (and readers and reading) can only be advanced by this new-found means of allowing people to do stuff.

It's messy right now, and as bubbles are inflated and burst there will be bizarre gains and losses on all sides.

One thing is certain: like the very best friendship cakes, there can be no unmixing of the ingredients.

Interesting times for all.

In the last 8 months, I've read a lot of great indie pubbed books. I only choose ones that have compelling covers, some good reviews and that have a killer premise. And I made sure that the first novel that I published this way, was flawless, a page-turner, and written well. I loved that I could art direct it, and illustrate it, as I am also a published illustrator.
Is self publishing a bubble? No. Will the cream rise to the top. Yes. The filters will be online indie publishers and collectives that promote only the best of the genres they like.

I agree completely. All those people frequenting used bookstores and taking home sacks of books? They're turning to cheaper ebooks now and still buying, still reading. Most of us can read more than we can afford.

I do think the bubble bursting will be that of traditional pubs who are trying to market and price ebooks like print books. You know, the pubs who can only do so many books a year costwise. The ones who once picked and chose the authors to be published.

Two years ago, I saw self-publishing as a last resort, but right about then, I started reading Konrath's blog. In fact, I think I first linked to it from here, so I should be thanking you. Anyway, I don't think there is a bubble. Like any venture, some will succeed and continue, some will find it's not for them and stop writing/publishing.

I've been at it 20 months now, and can't foresee quitting anytime soon. In fact, I'm doing well enough to cut down on my day job hours to part-time.

It's tempting to look at times of rapid change as a "bubble" but what's happening is essentially a technology revolution touching the book industry. Every industry that technology has "touched" hasn't been a bubble - it's been a fundamental change in how business is done. That's what I see happening here.

And I think we're a long ways from done. Self-pub (and the rest of the industry) is still evolving rapidly. 2012 still has many changes ahead of us.

The mother is not only the selfish,she always take care of her child's.

Why did Mary's garden grow? Because she was quite contrary and she uprooted everything that wasn't a silverbell, a cockle shell, or a pretty maid.

Economies are the same way. I think the self epub trend is more of a rush than it is a bubble.

It's new and there IS a lot of profit (insert your definition here) to be had. When the dust settles, the successful will have elbow room and the others will move on to other things.

As someone who works with indie authors, I have to agree that self-publishing isn't going anywhere. Where traditional publishers are reshaping and adjusting with sales numbers declining, our business is thriving. The desire to become an author is a dream for so many that I can't see the self-publishing trend as going away.

Terrific post!

I need a little noise, like ambiance or instrumental music, but if there is lyrics it has to be turned down so it is almost muted and I can't know the words or I'll start singing along. My favorite is listening to movie scores that reflect the mood of my writing.

I need some sort of noise. I have small kids and the absence of noise is deeply suspicious. I can write with the tv on, music playing and occasionally with a minor war breaking out on the sofa. I wish I was kidding.

I have to have music on low volume. I need music that speaks to what I'm writing about if I'm writing fiction. For work (I write for a women's website), I like swing/big band really really low so you can barely hear it, like in the old-timey movies. When I'm working on my current YA novel set in the nineties, it's all Journey all the way.

I finished my first novel to the sound of some japanese mech cartoon on continues loop. Sadly the computer was right next to the family tv and my brother was obsessed with this one video. I wouldn't recommend it, but for some reason it worked.

I like to use quiet piano solos to drown out the excess noise wherever I am.

Most people seem to write well to music, but I can't write at all when music in on unless the music doesn't have lyrics. Even then, its difficult. What doesn't make any sense though is that I can write really well with a TV on in the background - as long as its not too loud.

I need absolute quiet--being a musician, I can't use music to block it out (I go into theory analysis mode). I have, however, been forced by the presence of small children, to learn to function without absolute quiet...but I'm never as productive.

Even in high school I studied with the stereo on. I still have the radio or TV on when writing although I absorb nothing from them. They become white noise for me.

I feel like an oddball. I need quiet for writing and revisions. A coffee place is the last place I could write since I'm such a looky-loo that I get distracted by making up stories of people I see.

A little background noise won't distract me while writing: the TV if it's on in another room, the kids talking, the birds if I'm on my deck. But I absolutely cannot write with music of any kind. My mind always wants to wander off with the lyrics or melody.

I don't write well with noise. I used to write at my local Starbucks, but I wore headphones or earplugs because all the conversations and kids who would come in were so distracting. Now I have an office that is silent, and I love it. I just wish I could get there more than twice a week - only once this week with the holiday weekend.

I love to write while listening to lyricless music. Soundtracks, instrumentals, and cinematic music is all fair game.

But I also like to write in a droning environment. The slight hum of conversations floating about actually helps me to get into my own focused zone.

Although there is a point when it gets too loud and becomes a distraction. That's just frustrating.

I'm home alone *and* I take out my hearing aids. Ahhhh...

It depends. If I'm in a creative phase, I need total silence.
If I'm "stuck" background noise works better.

NPR is on all the time. The occasional times when something so interesting comes on that I must stop and listen are welcome and usually make me more invigorated to write.

I need project-related noise, if anything. So, if I'm drafting a picture book, I like to be in a public place like a cafe or mall or restaurant where there are kids and other people around just doing what they do. If I'm working on a novel, I need some scene-related mood music to get me going, but then I really need quiet.

The most important thing, though, is that the noise not be of the distracting nature - my kids in the background, a TV show I'm a little bit interested in, anything like that. The noise needs to be tune-out-able.

I like background noise for sure, especially a laundry machine or car traffic. But as an ex-barista I can't work in a coffee shop unless I have headphones in. I get too distracted by analyzing people's drink orders :P

Mostly noise, though there are times when I have to have silence.

If by "noise" you mean white, red or brown noise, then yes - if it's the right frequency. But I cannot abide talking, music, or snoring doggies.

I'm the strong-on-silence type myself, though a quiet coffee shop is close enough. When I was writing my novel, I found the sessions at Starbuck's were pretty productive. (And I was drinking decaf.)

I've never been able to work in total silence. Coffee shops work okay, but if there isn't enough noise, I tend to key in on individual conversations. And there goes any chance of productivity.

If I play music, it has to be instrumental or I start singing along.

Over the holidays, I found that the food court at the mall worked great. There's a waterfall that gives just enough white noise so the conversations don't distract. However, they closed the coffee shop in January, so I'm back to searching for just the right place.

No, usually noise distracts me.

If I'm in a coffee shop or busy place, I tend to observe the people and activity, and produce little.

Some coffee shops here are now starting to limit the time 'writers' can spend sipping their coffee and writing. They want more turnover at the tables, to preserve revenue.

I prefer quiet in my study, with coffee or tea, especially in the morning OR when creating the first draft.

When editing, I can listen to low level music (usually jazz or blues instrumentals).

Nice to see a writing post, Nathan. BTW - hate the new word verification that a lot of blogs still have.

Coffeeshops work best for me because there is something about the atmosphere that makes me feel more creatively charged: the music, the conversations, the sound of the milk steamer. I don't know, I just want to get to writing. Quiet feels uncomfortable and lonely. Quiet feels stale. And then there is the nap problem.

I'm a teacher in a Middle School so I'm used to noise, and I'm the father of two sons, aged 9 and 15, so I can overcome any distraction. I prefer quiet, but that's not the reality in which I live. So just get it done is my philosophy.

Yep, I have to have ambient music playing in the background. Thank goodness for iTunes radio. Total silence and I start thinking, "I can't write! My brain is empty! I need background noise!" Now, people up and moving around? No way. Eye goes to the motion and the story on the computer screen vanishes. Do they make blinders for writers like they do for horses? :)

I used to write best at my paying job during the most hectic parts of the day(in sales, not for me!)because I could turn the sounds of footsteps and sales being made into a buzzing hum and I'd rocket through chapters like nobody's business.

Last night I sat under a heat lamp at a bar's patio. I could hear the live music through the wall, the rain, and the wind. Toss in a bourbon and beer back and it was a winner. Was able to revise some short essays and put together most of a Powerpoint Presentation for an upcoming reading at Powell's (Yea! Fistpump! Squeee!)

I worked most of my professional life in newspaper city rooms, large, noisy rooms with people coming and going and shouting and talking. A few years back I got a job with my own office and it was TERRIBLE! So quiet I was always falling asleep or wandering the corridors looking for someone to chatter. I last almost two years. Writing at home, I have to have the TV on because the quiet is too damn quiet!

I must have music. I'm usually trying to drown out other noises while i write by listening to music. But I also find music to be a kind of 'engine' of writing. For me it's a forward movement that impels me to write. Maybe it's pavlovian, I put the music on and it's a signal that I'm ready to work. Editing though - totally different. I need silence.

Mostly in utter silence. Noise can be very distracting. I would watch people if I were in a coffee shop. Music plays a huge part for me when I want to create mood and can have that playing while I'm writing sometimes.

For the most part I need some sort of ambient noise. Music is the least distracting distraction, but it has to be the right mood and something I know pretty darn well. New music tempts me to really listen to it, which is not what I'm going for, or makes me stop to switch, etc. As for the mood...it doesn't even have to be the "correct" mood for the scene. I have one, ever-growing playlist that I can and have written nearly any kind of scene to. It just puts *me* in the right mood for writing. When I was younger, I could work with the TV on, but I find that more distracting these days (maybe because I'm rarely alone when I'm watching TV and thus the distraction is the prsn I'm conversing with, not the television). Like Julie, though, I used to work in sales and can write through even the busiest part of the day, so long as no one wants me personally. Too much quiet tempts my mind to wander.

One inconsistency: If I really, really, really need to concentrate on writing a scene or finding the logical sequence flow (did I say they had been seated in the cafeteria, or are Bob's elbows being pushed off a table that magically appeared?) then I need quiet so I can bring my whole mind to bear on that one point. Then it's back to the music :)

I like white noise, subtle noise. I guess raising kids, having pets, a husband, and typical everyday noise (music, barking, road noisiness, etc) has automatically blurred the sounds into lower tones. I still hear them all but they're not in the forefront of my mind while I'm writing...unless something odd perks up my ears.

Need the quiet.

Also need the laundry. I write in short bursts (45 min to an hour) and getting up to change over loads is a good break for me. I spend fifteen min away from the computer, get the blood running through my legs and then go back for another 45-60 min stint at the computer.

In silence.
:)

This is interesting. At home, I can't write if there is music playing or the TV on or anyone around me talking. But every saturday I hit my local coffee shop for 2-4 hours of write time. The noise of the coffee shop is somehow perfect and I get more work done there than I can with the same amount of time at home.

Silence. I must hear myself think. My brain is too hyper-curious and needs to investigate any sounds that creep up. Its a liability. I'd get more done if I could do it with my kids running across my face.

Definitely silence for me.

I prefer not to, but I can write with background noise, although music with lyrics or distinct conversations jar me. Coffee shops are not a good place for me because of this.

On the other hand, once I'm really into it, a stampede of elephants could tromp by and I wouldn't notice.

But to start, what works best for my concentration is complete and lovely silence.

I like it quiet. Or my playlist (nothing with lyrics though). But most often I prefer it to be quiet.

/Anna

I don't mind the silence of the early morning, when I can't turn on music for fear of waking my kids, but I also do well in a corner of the family room while my wife and kids are watching TV.

Actually, it's kind of fun when they are watching "The Voice" because I can't see the TV from my writing chair (where I camp out with my laptop) and if someone actually stands out I'll lean forward to take a look.

But when the winds blows or stops blowing, the two things that set my schnauzer into a neurotic barking frenzy at the front door, I get a wee bit aggravated (at the dog, not the wind).

If the noise is consistent (like white noise) and I know that there will be no interruptions, it's ok. But that's almost never the case in coffee shops! All things considered, I prefer absolute quiet or noise that I create and control myself.

I like background noise, and usually write to random songs playing on iTunes when I'm at home. At coffee shops, there's usually something playing over the speakers already.

I like to write with music playing, but I can also write with noise in the background, just so long as that noise isn't someone talking to me. I don't much like writing in silence. There's something spooky and creativity killing about it for me.

I find it hard to concentrate in absolute quiet. I think background noise eliminates some of the self talk and day to day thinking that goes on so I can concentrate on what I am writing. For me I usually have the tv or radio on in the background. I brainstorm best in an atmospheric cafe with caffeine of course.

I can't write with music playing, but I do appreciate some noise. AS you said, there's something about slightly divided attention that helps me focus. I function better when I multitask, and perhaps that low level of noise pulls on my attention just enough to make me feel like I'm doing two things at once, even though I'm not really paying attention to the TV or other people. It's an illusion that works for me.

Total silence. And I love music - I make up character play lists - but while writing I need silence.

Yeah, I can't do it. I need zero distractions around me or nothing gets done. I even have to turn off my internet ever once and a while.

I like quiet, but if there is noise around me I am good at tuning it out. I call it "turning off the world."

No noise for me! I do work in coffee shops because I love being there but the noise doesn't help.

I need music. I make soundtracks for my WIPs and listen to pretty much exclusively that while I'm writing.

I find that a song that connects you heightens you're emotions to the place they need to be to reach out of the page and grab the reader.

CV

I used to need music when I wrote. I couldn't write in silence, it drove me right to the edge and killed all my creativity to write in a silent room.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand then I gave birth to a child who needs to speak as much as he needs oxygen, and I found that I absolutely needed silence to write, and without it, I couldn't hear myself think. :)

No noise. Not a peep. Seriously, shut up!

If I have music in the background, I want to sing along which is definitely a distraction. Even instrumental draws my mind away from my work.

I like writing in coffee shops too, but I think for me it's about having the pressure of people around me potentially watching me that keeps me focused on my laptop rather than staring into space. I can generally block out the noises around me, so that part doesn't make a difference

No way could I work in a public place. I have to work at home in my office and alone. I like to have music playing in the background but it isn't a requirement.

Hmmm. I am finding that writing with no noise whatsoever has improved my ability to think about what I'm writing. Sometimes I write with music, lyrics and all, but I turn it down so much that it is barely audible. The problem for me is, when writing in silence, is the noise of my computer's fan. I really don't want to close out everything just so there aren't many processes going, so I'll throw the earbuds in and put something like dubstep or glitch on. I used to use yWriter5 and that had typewriter sounds which thrilled the geek in me (I use Scrivener for Windows now). Still, silence suits me better but that damn loud fan!

Red Wings games and movie sound tracks work great. Sometimes a CD, but occasionally I find myself stopping to sing . . . so no words is best. ;)

Back and forth between music and silence. But never with other people around.

Interesting question, Nathan :)

In the past when I wrote often and a lot, the words poured out if there was a low level of distraction. I always preferred writing in complete silence and this was the way I'd spend whole days lost in the story world. Having said that, on rare occasions it was also useful to have mood music playing in the background. This helped to focus on the feeling beneath the scene and gave extra empathy with the characters' emotional state. The scene was usually more evocative of the prevailing mood because of the music, too, I thought.

For me, it depends on what I'm writing. When I'm writing for business, it's coffee shop type low-level noise I need. When I'm writing super-technical, it needs to be silent. When I'm writing creatively, it's the music that fits the mood of the scenes.

Another fun question. Nice to hear so many are like me. I can write anywhere, anytime...on buses, coffee shops (my favorite), or in front of the tv. My husband can't understand it! The only thing that makes me crazy is the sound of sports on tv, and I think that's just because the announcers have a distracting cadence.

Music. Instrumental for when I'm deep into the writing, but in the discovery stage music that tells me something about the character. Quiet if I'm revising/editing.

It varies, from one extreme to the other. Which can be a little aggravating when I've come out to the coffee shop and only then--amidst the din--do I realize it's a Quiet Day. True quiet (I have a family) is usually only achieved around 3 a.m.

For plotting and rough drafts, I'm usually most productive in the wee hours.

For dialogue, it's the coffee shop. Great lines, yeah. But just the rhythms of conversation. Descriptions, too, are better when I'm out and about.

Music for me too. Soundtracks and opera singers, of all strange things. Nothing with a beat, and no TV. I can't tune the TV out.

I too, work well in coffee shops. 90% of my writing is done at lunchtime in the noisy cafes around my work. Plus, as Nathan says, there's also the caffeine.

My preference is to write with instrumental music, preferably jazz playing at a background level - not loud enough to intrude into my awareness, but enough to mask the dogs barking, etc.

It's weird than I'm able to write in a coffe shop or in the train station, I don't care about noise there. But if I'm in my studio I need quiet, even the most little noise disturbs me. So I use an anti-noise ear muff XD

As for me, whether in noise or in quietness, once the inspiration is there, it rushes all out.

I'm fine with whatever. With a little determiniation, you can make a habit out of almost anything. And necessity is the mother of invention.

Either really, but I prefer just a little background distraction. It helps focus my mind on what I'm doing. Too much--like I imagine I'd find in a coffee shop--wouldn't work for me.

I have found I can write anywhere. And sometimes what is happening around me makes it into the writing. When I was in Paris, two Americans discussing plastic surgery lead me to write my blog about it - it was part of a series that became a whole book. The original blog is here: http://bonjour40.blogspot.com/2011/05/day-27-may-17_17.html

When I'm writing I keep all the details of the story twirling around in my head at the same time like a plate spinner with a dozen plates whirling around on sticks. So any interruption causes all my plates to fall and crash on the floor. It takes a lot of effort to get all those plates spinning again.

Therefore, I plug in the earbuds and crank up the iPod with something loud.

I must have noise, whether I'm writing, studying, or working my day job. It helps me focus. In silence, my mind is wandering and I'll wind up singing to myself (and everyone around me - I have a loud voice).

I need music when I write. The ideas flow so much better! Coffee shops also have a great writing vibe for me.

I can, and I can't. I say this because if I'm listening to soft toned music that is soothing, relaxing and I can literally picture myself on a beach then yes I can write freely. But if my surroundings are loud or there are many distractions causing me to lose focus then I would prefer it quiet. It varies.

There's a fine line between background noise and distraction. For me, as a chronic eavesdropper, any sort of speaking is a distraction. I do my bet writing when I have my iPod on, with music playing just loud enough to block out everything around me, but not so loud as to block out my characters' voices. Coffee shops and sports on TV would just distract me from my work.

At work (I'm a copywriter) I hate being in a noisy and distracting space. I'm almost always listening to music to get the job done. I've gotten somewhat used to it though - you can't control your co-workers! I would be far more productive elsewhere, though, and sometimes step away from my desk and find a quiet corner to work.

When I'm working on my novel, I'm definitely a coffee shop writer. I only listen to my music when I find that the music of the space is too irritating or distracting. I never put any thought into why I like the coffee shops so much - I think it has to do with the caffeine and getting out of the house and office!

I learned to write in a bowling alley, so it doesn't matter how much noise is around me at the time. I can still write. In fact I probably write better when it's noisy than when nothing is going on and it's too quiet.

I prefer low-level music in the background, but have nothing against silence. I like a coffee shop or other public place for writing because I give myself no excuse NOT to write, as in "I didn't drive all this way (5 minutes!) to surf the web or read email. Doesn't always work, but it gets me away from the other distractions my house avails me--TV, books, eating, cooking, cleaning, fixing that squeaky door once and for all.

I definitely prefer when it's silent. It helps me get into the minds and emotions of my characters. Which is probably why I prefer it when the hubby is at work. :)

Nathan,

Good to have you back.

I enjoy writing and listening to classical music. But if my concentration or the muse on my right shoulder is having trouble transcribing the activities of my characters, I transcribe in silence. Except of course, the sound of the keys in the keyboard.

Depending on the day I write with blasting music, soft music, or no sound at all. It depends on what I'm writing and what type of mood I'm in. Some days I'll find that blasting music ends and I won't even notice.

The one thing I can't abide is talking while I'm writing. Music with lyrics? Great! Something with a beat? Sure! Talking? I will give you the death glare of doom, pop in some headphones, and turn my music up until I can't hear you anymore.

Music is music, so that works for me. People talking though...I guess I'd say it's like trying to have two conversations at the same time with two different groups of people on separate topics. It simply doesn't work.

I love to write with music on...Silence is not my thing...I get inspired by music..

you can't, but you can. go contradict on a different post...

A bit of both, actually. I find that when I'm typing straight onto the computer, I need total silence. But if I'm handwriting, I can have nice, soothing music on the background.

I'm a writer in silence girl. However the tv may be on . . . muted of course.

The wording of your answers is a bit narrow... "I will try traditional publishing first" implies that if we don't succeed, we will self-publish.

I plan to pursue traditional publication, period. If the first novel is not successful, that's when there's a second, and a third, and so on.

Self-pub is fine; but it's not for all of us.

I get why people want to bypass traditional publishing. We hear about low royalty rates, difficulties breaking in, authors complaining about lack of control over the finished product, etc. etc. etc. And we hear about those who have made millions through self-pubbing and think "Why not me?"

Thing is, I know, for myself, why not me. I don't have the resources to give my work the best shot it can have in the self-pubbed world. (For one thing, I write Middle Grade fiction, and plan to emphasize school visits. Schools are wary of bringing in self-pubbed authors) I don't have the talent to design a cover, and don't have the money to invest in an artist. I don't have the money to invest in an editor (a must for any successful self-pubbed author) nor do I have the connections to get my book in the eyes of influential reviewers or purchasers.

Bottom line is, self-pubbing is much more viable today than ever before, but it still isn't the best option for everyone. If you can break into the traditional publishing world, I feel like you have a better foundation to build your writing career.

I agree with Rick and IsaiahC... I just don't have it in me to self-pub and know that my book wouldn't be the best it could be if I went that route. Plus, while there is a lot of frustration with traditional publishers, I still see authors/agents/editors who get along swimmingly and really believe in what they're putting out there for the world, so I just have to be hopeful that it will happen for me, too :]

I plan to only pursue self publishing, but if a trad house come knocking on my door with a million dollar deal... I probably wouldn't say no unless the contract was atrocious.

I tried traditional and went to acquisitions with 4 books only to not make it. After parting with my agent, I decided to publish my own book, Untraceable, coming out Nov 29th. Its been a wonderful process but I would love to make it back to traditional publishing someday. I do believe in the traditional model.

As a hobbyist writer who has made no moves in either direction yet, I can only say that self-publishing looks like an increasingly viable option.

I do buy into the notion that traditional publishing is largely "book as event" publishing, and if you fail to knock peoples' socks off, you're likely to be pulped and forgotten.


Self-pubbing, on the other hand, gives you an awfully long period of time (like forever) and much better royalties with which to meet whatever threshhold of financial success you set for yourself.

And if you write something good, I mean really, really good, I believe it will eventually float to the top, whether it's traditionally or self-published.

I didn't respond because both is where I'm at. I've been traditionally published and I've self-published. Hell, I did an iUniverse thing 10 or so years ago when a traditional pub deal fell through. That said, I've got a couple projects out with trad publishers, but everyone's so skittish right now they can't seem to commit to anything, so I'm self-publishing some of them. I'm sifting through ideas that might make a good project for a traditional publisher for both fiction or nonfiction, while continuing to work on some of my own projects that traditional publishers haven't been terribly interested in, although readers have responded reasonably well to.

Rick-

Yeah, I thought about splitting up the first category into those that would and wouldn't pursue self-publishing if it didn't work traditionally but thought it would be easier to have two options.

You need an additional answer in your poll:

"I will try traditional publishing first, but will resort to self-publishing if necessary."

That's what I'm starting to seriously consider.

I read Konrath's post a few days ago and he has some very valid points. Self-publishing is very appealing. In fact, if it came with editorial services, I would probably already have gone that route. HOWEVER, it doesn't. I am at a point in my writing where I don't know how much more I can improve on my own without good, thorough, knowledgeable edits to learn from. Maybe down the road I'll go with self publishing (although not strictly ebook publishing as many are doing--I still dream of having my own hardcover sitting on my bookshelf), but for now I'm chasing the legacy dream.

I self-published my first novella last month and am working on the next project. It's really not that hard to find a editor or cover artist (I consider them business expenses), and the formatting/uploading process, though tricky, isn't hard to learn. Marketing is the hardest to do on your own, but I have an ad campaign running on Goodreads and have asked some bloggers for reviews. I enjoy the freedom of doing it myself, and since novellas are tough to market, they're good choices for self-publishing.

This doesn't mean I'm giving up completely on traditional publishing. I may still try selling some short stories to traditional markets for exposure. I'll probably hold off on traditional publishing for novels until the industry settles down, though.

I'm aiming for traditional publishing. If I had a novel that an agent believed in but that failed in Acquisitions (after serious consideration), I would consider self-publishing. But, honestly, I wouldn't self-publish anything that didn't have gatekeeper approval first.

Haha, there should be a "Still trying to WRITE IT" option. ;)

Still haven't made up my mind. The idea of self-publishing is very appealing for all the reasons you mentioned, but I still would like to know that the people who know the market better than I do and have slogged through mediocre book after mediocre book would see something special and marketable in my work. There's a little part of me that thinks, "If self-publishing is the only way I could put my books out there, maybe they're not good enough to sell."

I'm not sure it's an either/or proposition. I have an agent. She as a book on submission. I also have another book I am self-publishing. Just as a particular publisher might be a best match for a particular book, so will a publication route be individualized.

I couldn't vote because neither was the correct option for me. I just self-published my first romance novella and I plan to continue writing more in the series. These will all be shorter length and self-published. And I have some other ideas brewing in my head. However, I don't think of traditional and self-pub as mutually exclusive. I still plan to submit future stories to digital-first publishers and to NY houses later down the line.

For me, it's an issue of focusing on my career and I do not feel that traditional publishing alone can support an author's career--unless you're a breakout sensation. Most authors I know make more from their digital-first published books than their NY books, but even digital-first publishers have their drawbacks as well.

I feel that in order to survive as an author today, I have to diversify and take charge of my own career as publishers are looking out for their bottom line and not necessarily out for me as the author/content producer. In my mind, I feel that having self-published, digital-first, and also traditionally published books is the way to go. It's not an either/or option. It's more of a question: "What is the right publishing option for this particular book or series?"

Would love the personal validation of the traditional method, but I kinda feel like it's high school all over again... everyone wants to date the prettiest girl, but once you really get to know her you realize what a high maintenance, arrogant, self-centered rhymes-with-witch she can be. And you open your eyes to other--better--possibilities.

I would like to point out that I am referring to the process and industry above, not any particular agent or editor or other individual. For the most part, the people I've met have been sincere and lovely. But it's getting harder and harder for me to see the real benefits of traditional over self.

Self-publishing entirely. I've finished my first novel, and am working on the second. I have some revisions to do on the first before I post it for sale, but I'm planning on having it ready for January. I sort of like the irony of publishing in January, because I spent the past decade as an editor madly pushing books out the door to hit November for fiscal year close and holiday sales. It's fun to have the freedom to choose to do it as I like.

And that's basically the self-publishing answer to me: at this point in time, I think the financial rewards are just as likely to come from self-publishing as traditional publishing, and with self-publishing I get the freedom to write my own marketing copy, to design my own cover, and to tell a story that doesn't fit smoothly into genre categories. As an editor (non-fiction), I used to have to say "I really like it but I don't know how we'd sell it." I look at my quirky novel, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what an editor would say to me -- but I don't have to sell 10,000 copies to justify the print run, I can just hope for a few readers who will fall in love with it enough to read number two (and then 3 and 4 and 5 and so on.)

Konrath has some good things to say, but his blog is (understandably) skewed toward self-publishing. That's what people seek him out for, so it makes sense that the lion's share of his followers would be people seeking to self-publish.

I wish more would listen to Mr. Eisler, however. His posts and tips are more balanced and more realistic for the mainstream. Everyone CAN'T make it self-publishing (or any other kind of publishing), but if you read enough of the posts and comments over there, you realize that's what too many of the posters there think is guaranteed.

Having said that, I have no qualms with self-publishing something, and there's a project I'd try it with, assuming I can get it into the sort of shape I want it to be, first.

So, my long and muddied answer is... both.

I'm self-pubbing one WIP, but I'm planning to pursue the traditional route for my other WIP. It's like managing a diversified stock portfolio.

After my one-and-only experience with a legacy publisher, I wouldn't ever want to go through that again. This was a huge publisher, one of the largest in the world, and I was treated horribly. I didn't get paid on time (to the point they called for an internal audit), I have to bug them every step of the way to get things that should be a given (author copies months after the book came out?), they never even told me when the book was to be published! I felt like nothing more than a cog in a machine through most of the process, like I was just a factory worker turning out some generic product. No thank you. I've sold hundreds of copies of my ebooks so far, with very little effort on my part beyond writing. Self-publishing isn't for everyone, but then again, neither is legacy publishing.

I gave the tradition agent querying a try first. It didn't pan out even though I felt like I learned a lot from the process. After sharing the manuscript with some friends I ended up acquiring an editor and cover artists who believed in the book enough to help me bring it to publication.

I was going to make a pass at agents again after a few more revision, but now it is looking more and more like self-publishing makes more sense. Sometimes these things just take on a life of their own.

I'm all about tradition. What would Christmas be like without eggnog?

I'm pleased to see such thoughtful, reasoned responses over the usual rhetoric (on both sides of the imaginary fence).

I responded self-pub all the way. A few background details: I've had an agent and went as far as contract discussions with Penguin, before it fell through. I've been published in magazines. Hmm, based on that, I suspect my answer is really self-pub all the way *from here on out*.

Earlier this year, I had a couple of agents I've networked with over the years ready to look at my newest project, and I had to make a decision on whether I was going to try out self-pub. Not because I'm anti-trad or hate agents or have a compulsive need to control every aspect of my work. It was mostly a financial decision and a long-term plan (especially after a brutally frank discussion with an industry professional I really admire about the future of publishing).

So I self-pubbed in May and did quite a few things wrong. Big splash and then petered out.

But I learned from my mistakes and self-pubbed again in October under a pen name and saw a hugely different (positive) result. It has been great motivation to keep putting in those long hours at the keyboard.

To those who are going to go self-pub, I have a single piece of advice. You've heard it from Konrath and Mayer, but it's also hard to follow until one's sees *firsthand* how right they are. Write A LOT. There is no promotion like a new release. A book or two a year is not going to earn a living for you in self-publishing.

Put me down for answer #4 or #5 - I plan to self-publish, and if my numbers are decent enough, I will try the traditional approach.

I am hoping to be querying my novel, after years of work, in about 6-8 months. I'm not considering self-pubbing at this point. From what I can see, the current self-publishing marketplace greatly resembles San Francisco in 1849: lots of people mining for gold, and most of the money going to the people who sell the equipment. Just like back then, there's always a handful who make a big strike and make the papers, luring the masses over the mountains to try their luck.

Maybe that will change, but in the near term I like the idea of working with an agent, in particular, if I'm lucky enough to find one. I've worked too hard on this to throw it away in Smashwords or Amazon's endless pile, and I do not have the time to both write and become a full time publisher. I'm happy to take lower royalties for a better chance at really establishing myself as an author.

Great topic, Nathan!

I thought the Eisler/Konrath discussion was great. I really like Eisler's viewpoint. I thought it was both balanced and clear.

I've been pretty open about this here, so no surprise, but I won't ever pursue traditional publishing, and even if my book hit it big I wouldn't accept any offers to publish traditionally.

The 'writer as lowly drudge' culture that permeates traditional publishing is the main reason for this.

I couldn't bring myself to sell rights to my work, work which is deeply meaningful to me, to an enviornment that I feel doesn't treat me respectfully.

If the culture of traditional publishing substantially reformed, I'd reconsider, but for now, it's really off the table for me.

I'm just grateful that I have options today that many generations of writers did not have. And good options. E-publishing is very appealing to me for many reasons - the creative control, the higher royalty rates and the pacing all appeal to me as well.

I was 100% for traditional. I had offers, I got an agent and then I was turned out for something that didn't seem too reasonable. Traditional turned out to be something far different than I expected or hoped. Frustrated, I began to release my novel on my blog a few chapters a week, but when advised to protect my work, I self-pubbed. I don't know where the road will take me, but it has given me choices that I wouldn't have had as a traditionally pubbed author. I chose my own title, I chose my cover art. All the choices and work can be overwhelming, but with all freedom comes great responsibility.

The problem is that neither one is mutually exclusive. I don't see why author couldn't pick both. I would publish traditionally for exposure and self publish for the money. My main goal would be to write the best story possible and after that is done, figure out where the best home for it would be whether that be through one of the big 6 or to do it myself.

Things in publishing are so fluid. I think it's wrong to dismiss traditional publishing and vice versa. I sincerely believe that publishing in both worlds will become normal.

After years of querying, I decided to self-pub a historical fiction novel of mine. It is about the Civilian Conservations Corps. It's doing well and I have unique audiences that are interested in the story and the subject. Libraries are picking it up. Self-pub is good for THIS book, but I'm querying two others. One, an agent has been very interested in. I hope to go the trad way with it.

I'm more inclined to self-publish because I like having freedom over my own material, though the exposure traditional publishing brings is fairly tempting. Where I am right now is going for self-publishing, but if I were to be offered a traditional deal (by some miracle), I might or might not consider it.

I'm not surprised more people said they prefer the traditional way.

Self-publishing only, from now on, forever. If I were advising a young writer, just starting out, I'm not sure what I'd say, but for those of us at the other end of a writing career, self-publishing is the only way to go.

This sort-of relevant blog post might be of interest: http://eyeblister.blogspot.com/2011/10/those-awful-self-published-books.html

I self-published, and last year made considerably more than the advance I'd likely have been offered by a trad publisher.

I've given up submitting. I'm not against the right legacy deal, but contracts seem to be getting tougher and more all-inclusive, while offering smaller advances. And the time they take to get a book on the shelves is inexcusable...

I will try trad, and keep open options for self-pubbing.

Attending a writer's conference recently helped me re-align my next moves.

There's no reason for a writer to narrow their own options by taking one side or the other. That said, I couldn't help but chuckle at Peter Dudley's take on the whole process.

I'm not attempting the traditional path. Although, it's for some, the industry is shifting drastically and it's no longer necessary to do things the same any longer. With the right cover artist and editor, not to mention a great marketing plan, it's viable to do well on your own. I'm not looking to make millions. I desire to write good books with no pressure.

I am going the traditional route. The book I am trying to get representation for right now is a contemporary ya and I just don't see how that would work well for self-pub e-book format. Maybe it depends on the sort of books one is writing as to wether they are more or less likely to go the self-pub route?
I wish I wrote suspense/thriller for adults because those are the ones I keep hearing about being hits as e-books. Maybe I'm wring?

I definitely want to try the traditional route first. I certainly like having self-publishing as an option, but I think there's no reason not to try traditional publishing, at least for me.

I'll admit that it's not such a rational decision as an emotional one - I've always bought books through bookstores that were traditionally published. I'd like readers to be able to access my books the same way.

I'll be trying the traditional publishing route and keep writing if I can't get an agent for my first book. With working full-time, I don't think I would have the time to independently publish and do all the marketing. But I can see how this is a good option for some people.

I think the first publishing house that develops a model to recruit successful self published authors with a fair and reasonable contract, is going to come out on top of the business.

I'm not talking Amanda Hocking or other self pubed millionaires. But the authors who are selling 1000 books a month, but could be selling 10,000 with the right polishing and muscle of a traditional method.

I always pursue both. Give it a year to pimp traditional then publish with my small press. My small press is doing well enough for me to consider pubbing others. So why does an author ever have to decide in a blanket. At the end of the day it's about sales. Either to a large pub then to market or straight to market. It's up to the author to decide what's right for them. Some authors just don't have the desire to run a business which publishing something is the business of 'selling' a product. And that's okay. Now we just have - more options. And I like it that way.

Oh, I do want add that now that I partner in a small pub I totally understand the biz way more than I ever did when all I wanted to do was write and get paid just to do that. Now I can write, sell it, and take it to market ... and do it darn well. Something I would have never discovered had I not had the journey of publishing.

I just successfully self-published a novella, after having published with a small press my first memoir, which I don't regret at all. In fact, it was the best way to go. But I'm too old (71) to wait and wait again for the publishing process to play out (and there's also the issue of control, and promotion, which more and more authors have to do on their own). I voted self-pub to your question; but I WILL try my next full-length memoir traditionally first, but only with two companies I have in mind that would be possibilities. Otherwise...I've done the querying, and I'm done with the querying! The rest of my time here on earth is too short. I am confident about self-pubbing because I got degrees in English and creative writing, and have worked as a proofreader and editor, and have a friend who can make covers for me. And I'm having great fun with this since I just figured out how to get my work properly formatted for Amazon!
Ann Best, Memoir Author of In the Mirror & Imprisoned

Sure, it would be wonderful to hand off the actual publishing work to "professionals", but even that is no guarantee. I had a contract with An Important Publisher some years back but walked away because of a conflict with an assigned editor who clearly had no understanding of, or deep interest in, my project.

A few years later I had another project at a Very Large and Important Agency. When a fair and reasonable contract offer came in, the agent responded by screaming down the phone and demanding a high six figure advance. The offer went away - and so did I.

My experiences are perhaps not typical - but, before you can find out, 'legacy' publishing demands you submit via an agent. Given that even the smallest boutique NYC literary agencies are getting (at minimum) 1,000 queries every week - is this the kind of lottery you're comfortable with? Makes you wonder if Tolstoy, Trollope and Twain could have passed the query letter test. Well, Twain certainly.

I spend 5 months writing a novel, 3 months researching and tracking agencies so that I can make a personalized and appropriate query, and then wait a further 3 months until the responses, or non- responses, have come back to me.

I think that putting the effort into self-publishing rather than gambling my time away on the 'legacy' route is probably a smarter way to go.

We live in an amazing time for emerging writers.

I've had eight books published with traditional publishers. After an unwelcome hiatus from writing, I'm back submitting a number of mss, but find the industry has changed so much it's a challenge to get back on the production line. This month I waded into the waters of e-book publishing with one of my out-of-print MG novels and am waiting to see how it goes. Success might encourage me to go the same route with my unpublished works, even though self-promotion is not my favorite activity and it takes a lot of time away from my writing. I'd rather have a traditional editor in my corner, who can take off some of the pressure and leave me more time to write. However, I am pleased with the way my e-book turned out--once the initial glitches get exorcized.

As a newbie in the writing world I haven't decided yet whether I'll go traditional or self-pub. I recognize that I need editing services, and I've researched enough to know that an agent can get me a smoking deal with a publisher (if my stuff is worthy), but self-publishing also looks appealing in that I can keep more of the profit for myself. I'm just not sure which way I'll go when I have something sellable.

Traditional. I want a real editor. I want a team to help develop me. I want my $5,000 advance damn it!

I self-pubbed my first book (not in print, digital only). It was a fairly painless - and free - process, and rather than still sending out queries, I'm already earning money. Only a teeny trickle so far, but I'm not doing it for the money anyway.

Would my book be better if I had the valuable advice from a editing team and whatnot? No doubt. But people are loving it as it is, so it's a win-win.

I had three books published traditionally. Then I stopped writing for a while (personal reasons.) Now I'm back, and it's self-pubbing all the way. I'm releasing my novels electronically on my own, as well as new short fiction. Next year I'll start releasing new novels.

That being said, the publishing landscape is changing. Would I accept a contract today from a legacy publisher? Probably not -- terms are too draconic. Would I accept one in the future? If the terms change significantly, I may.

My vote - self pub all the way - is a bit disingenuous - I continue to write and publish in my genre of 14 years as long as they will send me checks. But because of micro managing that work is no longer my best so the community and persona (dearhelenhartman.com)and the platform (I hate that word almost as much as Tribe - ugh) I am building on line will support my more interesting, work (what used to be called Break Out books) and I will probably not even try traditional publishing for that.

Konrath has a solution that works for him. He is a well known author with a popular blog, and he is well positioned to do his own publicity. I have never published, do not have a blog (yet) and have no idea how to get the publicity thing moving forward. So at this point, self publishing does not look attractive. Then again, by the time I get the novel finished, the landscape may look quite a bit different.

Quite possibly both. I have confidence that the traditional industry will hang around in some form, and would love to see one of the old houses' logos stamped alongside my name on a novel's spine.

But I also have confidence in the 'long tail'--the power of self- and indie-publishing to match readers of less-popular genres/voices to plenty of good books that fit their tastes. As a writer of rather old-fashioned high fantasy for young people of every age, I suspect the long tail may prove friendly. :)

No firm decisions either way yet, but lots of thought.

I have every intention of doing it all, traditional print, digital direct and self(e & print). This is a career and I already have more than one book in the can.

If I was selling hats, why would I only get them on the shelves at Macy's when there's a wonderful hat store around the corner?

Some of my books are better suited to a more traditional distribution and marketing process, others will do better if I hand sell out of the trunk of my car. The author objective is to connect with an audience - wherever they read.

I think the future will hold a mixture of both traditional and self-publishing for many successful authors (and perhaps hybrids or new forms yet to be invented). I've done both, and they both have their advantages and drawbacks.

I've given a couple of talks on self-publishing, and most people who walk in thinking they'll try it walk out thinking they won't. When they hear the realities, they decide it's not such a great option after all. Both traditional and self-publishing are hard, both require a lot of skills, and with both you have a slim chance of major success.

I think self-publishing is a great option for previously published authors who want to continue a series the publisher dropped or bring back their out-of-print books, for people who have a niche market and know how to reach it, and for people who love marketing and are good at it. But it's not easy or a guarantee of success.

You know, I hate to be cynical, and I think it's wonderful that you're doing this poll, Nathan, because it's interesting. And I know that you'd be the last one to say that it's scientific research.

But I do want to point out that there is no way to prove that the people who are answering this poll are actually writers.

Of course, that's true with all of your polls, but this is an especially controversial topic, and where people try to influence each other.

Just a thought about what this poll might be measuring, since many people can be answering it.

I will still try to find an agent.Right now I have to focus on the writing and making it the best it can be.It's tough no matter what way you go. You still have to promote yourself either way. I don't think I have what it takes to do self publishing. There is alot of work involved. I need a team behind me and even though some authors get fed up with their team I think I will take my chances for now with traditional publishing. The next step for me would probably be the small presses.

I think we're standing on the precipice of a new world... it will be interesting to see where things go, as a lot of 'bad' writers will be self-publishing as well as the good.

I find it hard that so many agents 'aren't taking queries right now'. Self-publishing it suddenly looking a lot more enticing.

Although the stigma against self-publishing is lessening, my main reason for pursuing traditional publication first will be because I want the resources I could potentially get through a traditional route. Having an editor, art department, possibly publicity (I hope), etc., provided is worth the lost profits I might make by going the self-publishing route for me at this moment. I'd like to have that sort of support.

I'm trying for a bit of hybrid approach; I don't want to throw my work into the public-facing slush-pile that is Smashwords, Kindle Direct, etc, to bob around unregarded in an undifferentiated soup of under-edited amateur content. On the other hand, I don't want to be lumbered with legacy media's business models (I plan on distributing the digital edition under a Creative Commons license, and on generating revenue through artwork, mobile apps, etc, as well as physical editions) or with their marketing demographics (I'm going for readers aged 9 to adult, but have no intention of removing the explanations of evolutionary computation or nuclear fusion, or changing the fact that my semi-delinquent 11 year old protagonist sometimes says swears), so, with a friend, I am setting up a small press (http://robotsquid.net), with the intention of putting our work through some proper editing, typesetting and design, before publishing and marketing it - and if we're successful, we might just open up for submissions!

Having self-published once I plan to consider both as viable options. My self-published book was for a niche market and found an appreciative audience. My current book is aimed at a much wider audience and I plan to try the traditional route. Part of it is curiosity, so I can compare the two, and part is still a confidence thing of having a publishing house standing behind my work.

I would definitely self-publish again. I think there are a lot of benefits, such as speed, flexibility, and control, that you give up with going there traditional route.

I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, I'm not experienced at publishing and am certain I could learn a lot from everyone involved with going the traditional route. And, I want anything I have published to be the best it could possibly be.

On the other hand, getting picked out of the slush pile seems like more of a picking the winning lottery number thing than being about the quality of the writing and story.

Either way, it sounds like you have to do your own marketing anyway.

I spent two fruitless, frustrating years trying to get published at a brick and mortar publishing house before I decided to self-publish on Kindle and Nook.

While I haven't had great success yet, I can control more of the aspects of publishing and I get to keep a larger percentages of the profits.

Given that most writers would willingly throw themselves off a cliff in order to be heard, the presence of a world wide absence of cliff adds to the scenario a hint of potential freedom.

For now, it's a free-for-all, and the question of self-pubbing vs 'trad' invites legitimate options.

Come 2016 (or whenevah), I suspect we'll see the usual rules of shaftitude enacted, with writers in thrall to the New Pub rather than the Old Pub.

"for all regurgitated spew cometh the rag"

I didn't read all the comments, but as others said, your poll doesn't cover all the answers...I have 3 pen names, and I am going forward with self-pub on one while still pursuing traditional pub for the others...it's partly about what traditional pub houses are willing to take a risk on, partly because I want to try my hand at what fellow SFA-RWA member Bella Andre calls "the grand experiment." But I'd never self-pub if I didn't have the help of some of my friends, who are writers, freelance editors, and designers, as well as the knowledge gained from RWA and researching the market on my own. And still it feels risky. But there's always the next book. :)

I re-issued my children's picture books in 2010 and had wanted to use them to get a publisher interested in my writing. It's a no-go with publishers now and I'm getting my books into ebook format for e-readers, tablets, etc.

If a publisher or agent popped into my life, I might reconsider using them. At present I don't see the value in a publisher except for their credibility and exposure for some sales.

Granted it is work to up my credibility and exposure for sales, but eventually, it will happen. I have time, an author platform and other marketing tricks under my tiara!

I didn't answer the poll, because I'm currently doing both. And I know a lot of other authors, young in their careers, doing the same.

For my own book, I do want a traditional publisher again--for the expertise, distribution and cache they provide. While I may make less per book,it's worth the trade off.

As a book writing coach, at times I do recommend self-publishing-- when an author wants the book fast, wants control or doesn't necessarily want/need to sell many but is using it mainly as a way to promote their business to potential clients/customers.

For those who want a bestseller or more cache/credibility, I often recommend traditional publishing. It's also easier to get national publicity coverage with a traditionally published book.

These writers mentioned have sold tons of books and have at some point taken advantage of the marketing muscles of traditional publishing to get there. They don't often mention that.
I've self published my first three books after about twenty, thirty submissions and rejections. I have a new novel finished and I'll keep trying for a agent, or an editior at a reputable small press, but my list has been reduced to only those that have responded in an interested, respectful, professional, manner the past. I've learned a lot, and my time is important too.
But landing a book with a major publisher is still a goal, I'll keep trying till that last rejection comes in, and then I'll publish it myself and move on to the next.
At least I know I have a few readers waiting and that's a pretty good thing too.

Self-publishing is a double-edged sword. My first novel comes out January 17, and my decision to self-publish had to do with all the things Nathan mentioned but also with the fact that I wanted to do a career experiment. I have yet to see the result, but the learning process has been extreme, to an extremely extreme degree.

I have vowed not to release my book until it is indistinguishable from anything coming out of New York, and having that mindset has made the process both incredibly difficult and incredibly rewarding. If you choose to self-publish "properly," you absolutely must hire a professional editor and line editor. That is AFTER you get as much feedback as you can from as many different people as possible. Even then, the work involved in making sure the book is as perfect as it can be makes traditional publishing look positively easy, at least from an outside perspective. When you pay editors by the hour or page, you must learn to be even more meticulous and self-critical than you already should be, because if you're not handing your work over for editing when it is 100% the best you can make it, it will cost you to backtrack. There is no safety net of quality control that a traditional publisher would offer. This has become the #1 most difficult aspect of the process, and it will be the #1 factor in my future decision to self-publish again or pursue the traditional route.

Then there is all the other stuff, from typesetting, Epub design, cover design, marketing, and all that jazz. The work load can be utterly overwhelming, and it can repeatedly be a punch to the gut when you realize that few "official" people will ever take you seriously, even if your book is good. (I'm talking about reviewers, particularly, even though I've managed to have some success in that realm so far.)

All that said, this foray into self-publishing (something I never thought I would do) has been one of the most rewarding, expanding, and intellectually stimulating experiences of my life. By treating this as a business, thinking like a publisher instead of a writer, and making my book as "real" as anything professionally published, I have gained a set of skills that most traditional authors would never have. I wouldn't trade it for a five-book deal. If I do seek the traditional route in the future (a huge possibility), I will be prepared for it in a way I otherwise wouldn't have been.

@Peter D. It definitely feels like high school all over again. The more conferences I go to, the more it feels that way. Still, I don't think I have it in me to deal with self-pubbing. At the same time, I'm not jazzed about an agent or editor getting on me about what I should be writing. I want to work on what I want to work on.

Self-publishing all the way - at the moment.

I'll freely admit I'm a control freak, and a hyper-creative - I enjoy the whole process of creating books. But I also think that when the industry is going to change so dramatically, it's most prudent to self-publish. I keep control of my rights and my IP, and if/when traditional publishing is revamped and reborn into their new business model, I don't have any existing contracts or obligations tying me to my previous business model, should I choose to switch.

Having self-published four novels and four short stories and selling those publications each and every day now, I plan to stay with self-publishing. Except for traditionally published authors in one or two genres, the happiest writers I know are self-published. I've also noticed a lot more typos in the expensive traditionally-published eBooks I've recently purchased than in recently self-published books by authors who have won awards or consistently received good reviews. There's a lot of excitement and creativity in the self-published author community right now. It's a good place to be.

I'm on the fence.

On the one hand, I'm not experienced at publishing and am certain I could learn a lot from everyone involved with going the traditional route. And, I want anything I have published to be the best it could possibly be.

On the other hand, getting picked out of the slush pile seems like more of a picking the winning lottery number thing than being about the quality of the writing and story.

Either way, it sounds like you have to do your own marketing anyway.

This is exactly the question I've been wrestling with the past few months. I'm new to the book world and I'm still in school, so I've been planning (and hoping) on traditional publishing. I am very much okay with the idea of letting professionals handle all of the publishing details. They definitely know a lot more about it than I do, and after all, they are adults :)

However, the thought of finding an agent as a teenager fresh outta high school with no prior experience is really intimidating. Persevere, persevere, persevere.

I selected the first option, but I'm actually thinking about going both ways. I really want my novels published traditionally, but I'm strongly considering self-publishing some short stories, novellas, and poem collections through e-book markets.

I feel the latter three would be a much harder sell, but I still want them out there at some point, and perhaps generating some sales and readers.

I attended ThrillerFest/CraftFest/AgentFest last summer in NYC and pitched my fiction to 11 agents of the 65 who were in attendance. Ten wanted me to send pages from 10 to 100 pages each. I am currently working with a UCLA Writer's Certificate program author/instructor/editor in completing my final revisions. Soon, I'll be sending out to the agents who requested pages. I think you have to know when to "hold them and know when to send them out."

I believe that going with a small epress should be considered a viable third option. You can get the help and support of a print publisher and the higher control and royalties of a self-pubber at once.

-Anna

I was querying publishers with my first middle-grade novel when I unexpectedly got the rights to my adult series back.

I decided to set up my own imprint, re-release my adult books and also ... while I was at it ... release my new MG novel under the same imprint.

Since September this year I've tidied up and released a dozen short stories which were cluttering up my hard drive, I've finished one new adult and one new mg novel, and I'm halfway through finishing another adult novel.

All my works are scoring mostly 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, so I'm doing something right.

In summary, I'd say self-pub/indie is definitely the way forward for me.

Apart from anything else, it seems to be the only way to keep a moderately popular open-ended series going. Bookstores ordering to net will kill most series stone dead after 2 or 3 books.

I'm hoping for a traditional contract for one novel I'm finishing up now. Another novel is soon to be subbed to small presses (with epic fantasy in the place it's in, no surprise to me that there were very few nibbles). Self-publishing would be a last resort.

Self-publishing would be too much of a slog for someone in my position, I think. I'm not known so no name recognition to help sales. I'll be helping my husband with his restaurant, so sinking as much time in self-promotion as would be required (and somehow finding the balance between promotion and spam) would be difficult, not to mention the money that would be involved. While I realize some marketing and promotion would be necessary, I don't want them to be my primary jobs. Plus, even though I'm an editor, I know having someone else go through it would make my work better and less mistake prone. Can't pay for it so wouldn't get it if I self-pubbed.

Do you plan to pursue traditional publication or are you going self-publishing all the way?

I will do what desperation forces me to—which I wrote about in more detail here.

Thanks, Nathan - that's fair. The results are interesting, too. I honestly expected more folk to answer on the self-pub side!

I have gone the self-publish route because I have a good editor (my wife) who tells me when I've exceeded the bounds of sanity as quickly as she will tell me things look okay. I am also comfortable with cover design. The marketing is the hard part and the only reason I would consider anything from the traditional route. I have ebook sales and will have paperback as an option soon. Right now I am trying to get my second novel out before Christmas.

I am really, really enjoying this conversation. Everyone seems to have thought long and hard about their reasons for or against a certain type of publishing, and that's very refreshing. Personally, I'm 100% traditional all the way, for no other reason than the fact that it has been my lifelong dream since I was six. I don't care about the money (though I would eventually love to switch careers from professional copywriter to professional novelist if at all possible) or the control, or even whether or not it was successful or a flop.

Is this an odd mentality?

There's nothing "self" about self publishing because if you want to do it right, you need help. Editors, designers, web designers, etc.

A lot of people say they don't have the resources to self publish but you'd be surprised what can be done with a few thousand dollars. Eat Mac and Cheese for a month. No drinks with friends. Hire an editor.

People spend tens of thousands taking out loans to go get a degree in "What the hell am I going to do with this?" Then they put their heart and soul into a book and they won't spend money to make it better. Take out your 401K. The country is going into the crapper anyways. Live on the streets when you're old. Publish a book now.

Publishers are wising up. They will slap their name on your book, upload to all the same places you can upload to YOURSELF, and then they will take your royalties. But at least you'll have a Bird or a House on your book.

Agents are becoming publishers. Big publishers are forming self publishing-vanity rip-off services (Penguin=Book Country) and some agents are quitting all together to go work for CNET!

Give self pub a try and get your book into readers' hands instead of spending years typing a silly letter to strangers trying to convince them your work is "worth" something.

End Rant and Wahbah!
(Spinning back kick at Big Publishers)

Self-pub all the way. I tried traditional for years, and got the "It's really good, but it's not for me." response to partials and fulls. I finally got a contract with a small press, and it was a disaster. I was lucky to escape with my rights a few months later.

Now I self publish, and in 6 months, I've already made more money than I would have expected to get as an advance for a debut author. I have complete control, I set the schedule, and the people who work on my book work for *me*. I'm basically running my own business, and I love it. Seeing my book pop up on those Amazon fantasy bestseller lists shows me that I made the right choice!

Why should one deal with print publishers? They are an unnecessary middleman in today's evolving industry. There really only needs to be authors, readers, and in most cases, stores. However, the future may offer more venues where work can go direct from authors to readers, with no one skimming profits off the top.

I like what S. F. Roney said. More power to the people. What do tradtitional publishers know anyway? They knocked back some of the greatest works in literature, and the biggest successes. They are just a hindrance.
It's unfortunate that bookstores don't have self-published sections so that readers can get access to material of their choice, rather than being dictated to by (generally conservative) business people. I think this will change though.

Good morning Nathan! Yes! I am going to do it. It will be my first one. And I just posted on my blog about NaNoWriMo! And tweeted! And seen your link there too! Good luck! And have fun!
K_Einsel

I'm giving it a try for the first time. I'll be having a baby midway through the month, and if it's anything like last time, I'll need something to do during the endless days and nights of just sitting around nursing and healing.

I'm using a light little romance novel outline I planned out earlier in the year. I figure it's about right for 50,000 words. Haven't actually finished a novel since I was 19... 10 years ago... eh, we'll see.

I'm doing it. For the first time EVER. I'm aiming for 2000 words a day, staying off the internet until I have reached this quota. It's worked so far. I've already written 2041 words (I'm Aussie so we start earlier). NaNo started in my timezone little over an hour ago.

I'm Nano-ing this year so looking forward to your boot camp. Not sure about editing in December, might need to let the story/book steep a bit then tackle it in Jan. On the other hand I could prop get in there and do...something! Cheers and Happy Nano-ing!

No. I'm in the midst of writing one anyway. The NaNo phenomenon kind of bugs me anyways so I doubt I would participate in the future.

short answer: yes
long answer: Even though I'm having surgery at the end of November and powering through revisions from a smart and (gently) ruthless beta reader, and even though I have about a two sentence germ of an idea, yes, I'm doing NaNo again. Why? Because it works. Every book I've completed (two now) I started at NaNo. Didn't finish them in a month, but that's not the point. The point is to start. Now. It's totally empowering. It's the Writing Olympics. Good luck to everyone participating!

I'm in! And me and my buddies have instituted a Word Count Race to make it more interesting...=)

I'm in!

I'll be doing NaNo. It's more of a "butt in chair" building the habit thing than a hoping to hit 50K thing for me, but it would be nice to finish the whole book in a month.

Like you, I have a WIP, but I don't call it a NaNo because I started writing it last summer. Although I do expect to have the first draft finished by the end of November.

Yep, yep, yep. I'm participating.

Though I'm not playing by the rules, either. I'm making this "Josie's Novel Finishing Month" (JoNoFiMo???)

I've set out to finish up my major WIP as well as draft out a couple of MG novels that I started but have consistently shoved off my desk since then. I even forced myself to do some prepwork, despite my loathing of all things outline.

Hopefully by the time I start taking the turkeys off the law (not real ones...) I'll have 3 books in the can. :-)

This will be my 4th NanoWriMo! I've won every time so far so I'm really hoping to continue the streak.

These people who have started are making me a nervous wreck though. I have 12 hours of work tomorrow so I will be late to start and probably start behind.

But I also took a week vacation in November SO that's going to help balance things out.

I'm in, too! I'm also not starting a brand new novel in November, but am finishing a WIP (like Mr. D) and hopefully beginning another novel I have outlined. I know it's not strictly in tune with NaNoWriMo since I'm not working on a single new project all month -- but I think that, so long as I strive to write 50,000 words in November, it's close enough to be a participant! :D

Good luck to everyone!!

I'm on chapter four of a MG WIP so technically it won't be a NaNo, but I figure the spirit of NaNoWriMo is to write as much as you can and I sorely need some inspiration to do that so...let's see what happens. Looking forward to your bootcamp also!

Yep, this will be my six year doing it, second year as my region's municipal liaison. And despite it starting tomorrow, I still have NO CLUE what I'm gonna write this year. *panic*

Nope. I've always wondered why they picked November with Thanksgiving in it. I would have selected March, with 31 days and no serious holiday. I'm in the process of querying, so my next novel is put off until later. I don't feel I need to slather words on a page in one month. I can do the work on my own time. But if you do, good luck.

Yes, I'm participating. I blogged this morning about how well it was going so far, then realised it was still the 31st of October. I felt like a character in one of my own satires.

Hey Nathan,

This is going to be the year for us. This is our third November as official writers, or so we call ourselves, and it is time we ran the marathon with everyone else. I'm all stretched out and ready to hit the asphalt.
Good luck to all that are participating and away we go!!!

I'm not doing NaNo, having done it twice in the past I think it's a giant pain in the lower back. Besides, I don't need to write faster, I need to write better. : )

I am NaNo-ing. This is my 4th year, with 3 previous successes, and I'll be working on my 4th novel. Fancy how that works out!

I'm not participating this year. I've just spent two weeks in the revision cave and need a few days of sunshine.

I have set daily writing goals for Novemeber to play along at my own pace.

Best wishes to all you Nano-ers!

Nano-ing for the first time! Can't wait to juggle classes, homework, and a book. It sounds awesome!

I'm in. This will be my 4th NaNo and, hopefully, 2nd time I hit the 50k mark.

I'm having a go at NaNo for the first time, with a story I've been mulling over for a few months.

I'm simultaneously quite nervous and excited. I'll be checking out this here Boot Camp certainly!

I'll be a WriMo for the first time - very excited and kinda nervous. I'm certainly not as prepared as I could be, but that's part of the fun. :)

Sort of. I'm aiming to finish the draft in November. But I've got a good head start.

No. I'd rather indie publish with amazon and take my chances there, where I control everything.

I'm pretty sure I won't finish a novel in November (with its major holiday and my sister's wedding and that weekend conference I'm attending) BUT I'm gonna give it a shot anyway.

I'm going to go for it this year. I intended to last year, but failed miserably and let other things distract me. This year I vow to pump out something, even if it's crap. Gotta start somewhere! :)

I am going to use Nanowrimo as an excuse to finish (or write a huge chunk of) my WIP. I too have a head start, and my goal is to write as much as I can, getting as close to the finished draft as I can.

I'm in for my second run at it. I finished last year, chopped up the draft and then kind of left it's disassociated parts laying around.

This year I have a plan, a headstart and some useful experience.

I think a "What Genre are You Writing For NaNoWriMo?" poll would be interesting.

I'm doing NaNo for the first time because I had a break in projects -- and I'm trying to break the 500-word-a-day habit.

Happy Words to all participants.

I'm in--irresponsibly maybe, cuz I have a book contract on a non fiction title but hey--I have 24 months by contract to finish that one. So November is Fiction!!! and you are so right. December is Editing! Good Luck All.

No, I did NaNoWriMo last year and hated that I couldn't edit along the way. This November is a NaNoEdMo for me since I have about 3000 words left in my WIP and I have to get it ready for my writing group by the end of the month. It's also query month since I've been avoiding doing that for months. That's a deadline I can live with.

NONaNoWriMo for me. That said, I wish Good Luck to those who challenge themselves with this month long writing spree.

It's an excellent way to find out if you really can write that novel, albeit in a mad dash. . .

I've got other plans. . .

I LOVE writing this way. Won my first in 2009 and will do this every year. My writing group does one in June, too, we love it so much.

No on NaNoEdMo though. I have a deadline on something else I need to finish writing in December, then a final edit for my ABNA project in January... erm... I might have a joining thing...

I'm unsure. I'm so close to finishing my current MS, I'm so tempted to plow through that. I set a goal for myself to be done with it by the end of the year, and ready for submission by Spring. Thirty days may not seem like a lot of time, but it is.
Also, it starts tomorrow and all I've got is a name. No plot, no location, no crux. Just the name of a girl.

I will most definitely be participating. I don't always "win," but I give it the old college try every year.

Of personal interest, I have "won" twice--and both books were finished and picked up by a trad publisher. So, here goes nuthin'.

Yes, yes, yes! I have very vague idea what I'm doing but I'll use it as an exercise: "not sticking to a strict plan". Besides that I have to finish major revision of my first novel (also a beloved NaNoWriMo baby), because I'm supposed to show it to my publisher before the end of the year.

Well, I have a webinar up at the nanowrimo site... but that's probably as close as I'm getting.

I'm not doing NaNo per se, but I am trying to outline a few novel ideas right now and hope I'll get started drafting one of them soon, so I can at least produce a significant amount of content! I'm a bit of a slow writer, though, and 50,000 words in a month just doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Rock on to those who are participating, though!

November's a busy month during the school year, because that's when students start working on their final projects and e-mailing me to ask stuff like, "Can you just tell me what to write so I can get an A?" So I've never been able to participate, unfortunately. I didn't know that December was the month for editing. Maybe I could try it, because that's when things start slowing down a little.

I'm confused and lost and ... huh? How does this NaNoWriMo thing work?

No, I'm not blond, just been in the cupboard too long...

This is my first NaNo, so I'm not sure how ambitious I should be. If nothing else, it's a great motivator to pump out more words that I would have otherwise. I'm writing a traditional regency romance.

Yes. Somehow, on my iPad on the bus commute, late at night after everyone's asleep, weekend mornings. Despite summer's beckoning and my Mom's broken hip, I wrote 12,000 unplanned words for Camp NaNoWriMo this year. This time, I've got most of a beat sheet to keep me focused. Strap on your helmet, snug down your tunic, here we go!

Yes Sir, I am doing it this year. It is my first time. So very pumped!
M

When NaNoWriMo started, I remember being excited about it.

But it's been around for a while now and I've never heard anything significant come from anyone who was part of it. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Maybe I missed something.

And no one knows what it really is. It's starting to look like a fringe gimmick to me. I guess it's good experience, but writing a novel in a month is hard for the best. And I would imagine most who enter start thinking about it at least six months ahead of time (you know who you are) and say they wrote the book in a month. Who could prove they didn't?

anon-

I'd say WATER FOR ELEPHANTS was pretty significant.

I started a short story last year and then it turned out to be a novel and now a year has gone by and it still is not done. I hoping to use this month to finish it.
I started another short story to have done before november and I didn't do it. I tried setting a word count and now it's doubled.
I CAN'T WRITE SHORT STORIES!!!

I'm probably participating like you, Nathan. I'm revising a couple manuscripts, then trying to decide which to enter in the next year's Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award contest, and which to to shop around to literary agents and publishers again.

November is a great month, generally speaking, for concentrating on such work. Good luck to everyone else participating.

Best,
Terin

I'll be participating! Probably won't finish the whole book, but my goal will be to get a good portion of it finished. It's my first time EVER, so we'll see how it goes. Wish me luck!

Happy writing!

Yup. I'm doing NaNoWriMo. This is my third year. Not sure about NaNoEdMo in December though. My last two books each took another six months to edit. I was pretty happy with the end result on both of them, but no way could I have edited them in a month.

Yep. This will be my third. I just hope I don't hate my story by January. Again. Good luck everybody!

I'm like you in that I am *sort of* participating in NaNoWriMo, in that I'm working on something I already started. But I am a firm believer that NaNoWriMo is whatever you need it to be, and right now I need it to help me get through some tough chapters I've been avoiding. I am looking forward to going to some write ins though.

After several (four?) years as a local author panelist in my library's NaNoWriMo series, I'm finally doing it for the first time -- as a nonfiction "rebel."

I'm in the auxiliary corps, too. My writing partner and I outlined a sequel to our sci fi novella Death by Chenille and wrote the first two chapters, so we're not officially registered. Still, we are definitely using the energy of NaNoWriMo for inspiration.

I'm doing it, though there's never been a worse time for me to decide to start Nano-ing. I've just been totally bedridden and brain-dead for the past week from Influenza, I'm finishing up my last year of graduate school, I'll be traveling across the U.S. middle of November, I'm moving, Christmas-rush at my job...oh yeah, and I'm getting married mid-December!

There's never been a better time to super-glue my pants pockets to the chair and get writing (sarcasm?). But I'm not starting a new novel, just trying to sit and write every day on my current WIP. That's it. Small goal, but really, it's huge...

Well, I've been writing a novel for about the last six months, at a pretty steady clip, with some time off for travel (I've traveled a LOT this year). I'm at 48K right now. My goal for November would be another 15K words, putting me at, well, still not done. But I plan on writing as close to every day as I can, so I'm with you in spirit! Just not in word count...

I won't be participating because of the month-of-November-has-a-holiday problem. I really, really wish this took place in January or February. Good luck to all who are participating!

Third year for me. I love NaNo - it's the one time of year when I feel like being a writer is a team effort :)

I am going to check it out but probably not participate. I just put a novel and a short story out and am about 80 pages into the novel's sequel which I do hope to have out by the end of the month. I just have to get the characters to cooperate since sometimes they go off in unexpected directions on me.

Not this year. I'm currently revising my WIP, so I don't want to take time away from that. I am planning on participating next year though! The community of writers who participate is the coolest part to me. I can't wait to be part of that next year!

*looks at clock* *counts fingers* *goes back to bed* Me? Participation? Haha let me sleep on that! :D Thanks for offering all the great resources!

No, I've never understood the appeal. But then, I've never had any trouble writing prolifically, either. Besides, I always seem to be in the middle of a project when it comes around. Three years ago, I was writing a play, two years ago I was big into poetry, last year I was writing my first novel, this year I'm working on my second. *shrug* Just not for me I guess.

The Night Circus was a nanowrimo book too.

I write all year long anyway, but I take advantage of nanowrimo by going to the meet-ups and meeting people. It makes writing much more social.

I'd love to participate in it this year--unfortunately, I'm a grad student with a major paper due in mid-november, so most of my time will be spent on that miserable piece of work.

No, but my husband is. If you see him, could you tell him his dinner is getting cold? Thanks!

Yup, and I've written a few myself. I agree that some can be so sloppy and anemic that they're barely readable. But, conversely, I don't think the mighty gatekeepers are always that mighty. Savvy? Yes. Many times I think simply having a firm grip on the psychology of consumerism is what sells a book.

I've read several self-published books. While many of them are clearly self-published, either because of editing/formatting problems or just unpolished prose, I've read a couple of self-published books that have blown me away.

As a self-published author and a freelance editor, I know how important it is to pay attention to accuracy and quality. I do read other self-published books if they interest me and/or I know the author. It's hard to read comments about suspecting why a book wasn't picked up by a traditional publisher. There are other reasons for self-publishing -- it can be a choice in itself.

A book attracts me, not a publisher. I have and will continue to buy any book that interests me. Some are self pub some are trad. I read them all. The 3 most recent I've purchased & read were all self pubs & they were wonderful. I just bought 2 other self pubs & 2 trad pub ebooks today.

I read both self- and traditionally published books. What matters to me is that the writing style and story engage me.

I read both but I review indie books for my columns. I have yet to find one that was so bad that I had to put it down. On the other hand, I've purchased some trad published books that the formating was TERRIBLE, that needed an editor really badly. When one of my favorite books was finally released in ebook format, I had to make note to someone at Random House about it. Hell, even Stephen King has had books released that were full of misspellings, formatting errors, etc. That old saw ain't working no more, kids.

Is there any distinction between the terms "self-published" and "independently published"? As an author who worked with a "hybrid" publisher, I don't feel comfortable saying I "self-published" because I had a team of 4 amazing, experienced, type-A people working on my book tirelessly who wouldn't stop until we all felt it was as perfect as we could make it. Yes, I compensated them for their services, but I also learned so much from their expertise; I can't say I published my book by 'myself'. I had an incredible copy editor, graphic designer, and talented artist, all overseen by my "publisher", who never failed to answer any question I had, and patiently educated me along the way on the process, production, and industry. My book from inception to print took over a year, and we never felt pressured to rush it, as it was important that we have a high-quality product that could stand on its own next to any other traditionally published picture book on my son's shelf. It is hard for me to be "lumped in" with those authors that choose to publish in an afternoon online with a credit card, with or without humans on the other end of the website. I have also seen some amazing self-published books at the BEA in NYC which really spoke to important issues not often found in the bookstore under traditional publishers. Sometimes I feel this comparison should really be between books produced with patience, care and attention to detail, and those just thrown together with an ISBN. It's a bit like comparing moms who stay home, and those that work outside the home--neither one is better than the other, the real distinction is which parent is more "connected" and present and involved with her family? Perhaps large, traditional publishers feel a bit threatened that there might be high-quality, marketable books out there that people need and love--which were produced without their involvement??

I find it interesting that you asked if people only read trad-published books but didn't ask if people only read self-published ones.

I would say the latter if I hadn't recently purchased ADWD.

Amber, how do you suppose those "issues with typos, formatting, etc" sneaked in with novels that were being self-published from an authors backlist. Or were you by any chance holding them to a different standard that the trad-published ones?

Obviously, I have a stake in the discussion being self-published, but the first novels I self-published were from my backlist. *shrug* And what I read, the 100+ self-published novels on my Kindle tells that story. Trad published are better? Not in my opinion and my spending dollar backs that opinion up.

I've read a lot of self-pubbed books. Some are as well presented as if they had been produced by Random House or Bloomsbury, others were laughable. But then I read a lot of traditionally pblished books and some of those are laughably badly editted as well.

A lot depends on the professionalism of the author and the standards they set for themselves. Some ARE professionals and produce work that would shine anywhere.

This past year I have read more SP books than published. If a book captures my eye I will read it regardless of how it was produced.

I've only read a handful of Self-Published books and they have varied wildly in quality. I think that having alternative outlets for authors to get their works into the world is a fantastic idea but, unregulated, it is likely that authors with great potential going 'indie' stand a good chance of being lost amid the deluge of 'get rich quick' writers who pump out low-quality works in a month or less.

There is definitely something to be said for gatekeepers, for the benefit of all who are truly serious about becoming published authors.

I've read many. A lot could do with being 30-50% shorter. A lot mistake beautiful writing for good writing. But I've read double figures full of real raw energy, tight writing and pizzazz

As a publisher, I often look to well written self-published books as a source for finding new authors so yes I've read many ;-)
Robin Sullivan | Write2Publish | Ridan Publishing

OOps that previous note should have been made from my account - I was acccidently signed in as Michael.

Robin Sullivan | Write2Publish | Ridan Publishing

I read my first one, which had excellent grammar and good plot, but not much else--a waste of time and $1.99. Hoping that was unusual, I read six others and all are great, easily equal to any traditionally published book. Since the second one, I have read reviews before buying.

No. I've read a number of books that were Print-On-Demand by their publishers, and some manuscripts of children's fantasy that were later self-published, but no books that were self-published. This is largely because I don't buy books until I'm familiar with the author or until I've already read the book. I only know of one self-published author--Paul Marquette, author of the aforementioned manuscripts.

I saw one post that mentioned that traditional publishing serves as a necessary "gatekeeper" function. It's true in many cases, but remember that the "gatekeepers" are interested only in one thing: making money.

I have read a few self published books, but the best ones are those that you can't immediately tell they're self-pubbed.

I worked hard to make sure my book would look like it'd come from a traditional publisher. I obsessed over every small detail.

Many don't even stop to question who published it, including The Atlantic who just published an excerpt from my book.

Read and written self-pubbed books. As many of the comments note, both traditionally published and self-published books suffer if there isn't careful editing and proofreading. But I've found gems in both lists.

I've never read one, but if the packaging was professional enough and the author could actually write AND edit, I'd be willing to do so. Usually, however, all three factors don't line up together.

I'm currently reading one and forcing myself to continue. While it's not necessarily bad, it's not good either. The grammar is fine, and there aren't any typos, but the writing itself is mediocre - lots of passages of meaningless details and little in the way of character development. It's something that an editor - or even a good writing group - should've caught. However, as I'm currently editing my own novel, I might be hypersensitive to things the average reader might not notice.

I just read "Border Crossings - An Aid Worker's Journey into Bosnia" by Aubrey Verboven. What an incredibly rich, detailed and humane look into a corner of the Bosnian War. I have yet to find anything as gripping or accessible on this subject produced by mainstream publishers.

I'm reading more self-published books than traditionally published because they're more interesting and creative (they're not all clones of one another) and they're cheaper.

Yes, they are some duds in the ones I read, but that's no different to when I only read traditionally published books.

Judy, South Africa

I read self published books a LOT lately. I read from the 'look inside' sample and can automatically tell whether I'll want to read the entire book. If there's no sample and the book is inexpensive or free and recommended by Amazon, I'll usually give that a shot, too. I'm rarely disappointed.

Since I'm self-pub'd myself, I see many interesting blurbs from other authors in the forums and give them a try. However, I never download any book, free or not, self or traditionally published without skimming the reviews and reading the sample first.

I'm a fussy reader and will abandon any book at any point if I stop caring about the story or characters. My guess is (have never kept track) I do abandon more indie books without finishing than traditional, but I don't think the difference in the percentages would be huge.

I have both been pleasantly entertained and terribly disappointed by self-published books. Best way I've found of separating the wheat from the chaff is through word of mouth and friend recommendations.

I'm with others - I've read quite a few self-published books (maybe two or three dozen), and there are only two authors whose books I would buy again. What the rest of them feel like to me are those four or five books I have hidden away in a closet - practice books - never to be seen again. There are some good ones, but the lack of editing and the above problem means that I'm getting picker about them. Compared to traditionally published books, I probably read 1 self-published book to 20 or 30 traditionally (including e-pubbed) books.

Kate

Once upon a time, Hollywood could have asked a similar question: "Have you ever watched an independent movie?" We all know what happened there. Go mammals!

The worst book I've ever read was traditionally published.

I've enjoyed many self-pubbed books, I've disliked others. I have not found them to be that different from traditionally published ones of the same genre.

Full disclosure, my business helps business authors to self-publish (or independently publish) their books, so I'm biased. The books we've produced we by and large very good books and would have been indistinguishable from those that any of the major 6 produced.

In fairness, there are many books published by traditional/royalty publishers that have been terrible with typos and other issues. There are just good books and not good books - oddly, there isn't even consensus on those points regardless of the publisher. Much like movies, tv shows, and music have different quality and audiences.

Let's focus on getting good work done rather than who did it under what structure. Yes?

I voted yes, however, it was a memoir that a friend wrote and uses in conjunction with her personal training business. I have never read a self-published novel.

I have only read one that was written by an author who is usually published by one of the larger e-publishers. She is a friend and I knew it had been professionaly edited and I usually enjoy her stories. It was a great read with nothing to draw me out of the story. I have read excerpts of other self published books but am not keen to buy them when they usually appear to be badly edited. As an wuthor head hopping, wandering body parts, bad grammar and typos make me want to get out a red pen and I find I can't get into the story at all.

I've read several self-published books, most by other members of the California Writers Club. Some have been very good, none was worse than the 700-page traditionally published historical novel that a friend insisted I read. I also reviewed a self-published cookbook for the local paper, and found it to be quirky but surprisingly useful. I stopped looking at how the book came to be - what matters is whether it's interesting.

Yep, it was "The Artists Way" though I didn't know it had been originally self published. I also have read many cookbooks which are self published usually someone with a blog whose recipe's i already like. I also edited a self published book (and some traditionally published). Don't make the mistake of thinking all self published books have only the writer behind them.

I've read both self and traditionally published books that were both good and horrible.

I read and review self-published books quite often. I also am the author of a self-published book. I hate that people think those of us who have self-published have inferior books. I have read many that are terrible. I have also read many by traditional publishers that were not that great as well.

I have read a few self-published books that were polished and fun to read, but they were in the minority. Most were rife with typos, continuity problems, grammatical and spelling errors...etc etc. Ugh.

I have seen a few traditionally published books with the same problems, though.

I am an avid reader and read ebooks and paperbacks both self-published and traditionally published. Self-published ebooks are inexpensive and usually have sample excerpts so it's not very risky to try new authors. I have discovered some great novels and have become a fan of several new authors.

I have read three self-published books; one a non-fiction, which I did not enjoy and thought was written more like a high schooler's essay. The second self-published book I read was of personal antidotes and rather vulgar and a bit offensive. The last self-published book I read recently was a self-help philosophical book, written well, easy to read, but I did find four typos. Each of these books were written by friends, so I felt obligated to read them! As a writer, I'd rather be tormented with reject letters until one day someone says, "Yes your book is publish worthy!"

I am self-published and I read a lot of other indies too. Some stink. Some are fantastic. I just started reading The Venom of Vipers by KC May. I'm loving it! Of course, she's been traditionally published too. But I believe this book is all indie.

Read them all the time. Finding some new and not so new authors with a different voice.

I am amazed at the comments. I say we conduct a challenge.

Take books by category, mainline published versus self-published/POD published, and conduct an experiment. Have readers read books who read in the categories that are being judged, and see which they like.

Like an unbiased experiment, much like they do in medicine, to test results. It would have to be a double blind experiment.

I challenge you that the POD and self-published books will be rated even at 50-50, one-on-one. You take out the bias factor, I think you will be amazed.

You want help setting this up, let me know. It needs to scientific, unbiased, and fair.

I've read two. The typos, plot holes and stuttering flow of the stories kept me from enjoying them fully.

Personally, I'm willing to pay more for a better story which to me means having the book go through an agent, editor, publishing house, etc. so that it's as polished as it can be before it hits the shelves.

I don't think people should stop self-publishing, I just know that I'm not their target audience.

I've read quite a few self-published books, all fiction, selected because of their intriguing story lines and recommendations from others. As others have noted, the quality in self-pubbed books is quite wide, but I've been pretty happy with the ones I've read. If they've been put thru the spit-n-polish that an outside publisher gives they would truly have been winners! Some self-pubbed have even been better than the publisher-approved books! I'll continue to read these books, because otherwise I think I'd be missing out on some very talented authors.

My thoughts are similar to Jenifer and several other posters' comments; the quality matters, not how a piece is published. That said, I recently sought out a handful of the best-selling self-published fiction and was disappointed.

Of the self-published nonfiction works I've read, two were essentially worthless, a couple others needed structural work and condensing but were otherwise interesting, yet another was pretty good but had distracting typos, and one was excellent.

I've read several other self-published novels after reading reviews or hearing recommendations and sampling the writing, and been pleased with the stories. That's my firm strategy now.

I also read a fair amount of soon-to-be self-published fiction (since I'm an editor), and while writing quality varies, the authors are determined to put out solidly entertaining work, and are willing to invest in high-quality editing, design, and printing to do so. It shows in the final product.

To author Michael Sullivan, both mentioned and a commenter: I'm halfway through your series of The Riyria Revelations. Amazingly well written fantasy. (I even forgave the odd typo in the first books, which is rare indeed.)

Thanks for asking us, Nathan.

I've read one of Joe Konrath's novels (a good read), Victorine Lieskze's Not What She Seems (pretty good, but she missed some plot opportunities) and one of John Locke's books. Locke's a decent writer but his main character and premise are completely implausible. A contract killer who works for the Department of Homeland Security, whose superiors know of his freelance work. Give me a break.

One, and it was so horrendously bad that I've never downloaded another. The sad thing is, there was a core of a good idea on which the book was based. Nearly every (no lie) sentence was followed by an exclamation point!!!!!

To be honest, the only self-pubbed book I read was my own brother's, so I was compelled to read it by loyalty. Although a bit biased at the outset, I was quite impressed with the quality of the printed book and thought he did an amazing job. A slightly slow start could have been helped by an editor, but once I was over that hump it was off and running. I found perhaps 4 typos, but I see those in traditionally published books all the time.

I can remember at least one self-published book I've read, and I'm sure I've read several others (though self-published books and small press books sometimes get mixed up in my mind). But the problem seems to be that the self-published books I've read aren't that memorable. Or they languish, unread, on my shelf because there always seems to be something else I'd rather read.

I also worked very hard to make every detail of my books exceed the standards of traditionally published fiction. My only hope is that a reader never knows the difference - they don't have to love the books, no book will garner 100% fans. But the quality of writing, cover & polish should be impeccable when self-publishing because readers may already be wondering why we took the path we did. Personally, I work in a field that makes editors, artists & beta readers very accessible. Why would I pay someone to farm out for these services? I do wish more authors going the indie route would spend the extra cash to hire professionals as it is our readers, as well as sales, that suffer because of the books being released that simply aren't ready. But language is subjective and ever changing. Some rules are broken intentionally and self-pub allows that avenue of self-expression. Yes, I am continually educating myself, but if my editor argues over a point that has two right answers - if one of the correct answers is mine, I win.

That being said, I read 90% Self-pubbed now. Not only are they less expensive for a reader, like me, with a voracious appetite and a frugal wallet, but they are also usually original. But I always, ALWAYS sample! If I can get 3 books of the same quality for the price of one traditionally published novel, it is not even a choice.

Bottom line, writing is an art form and anything new is always subjected to criticism under a microscope. In the end, I won't be surprised if publishers become nothing more than printing houses for POD books and all authors begin to self-publish. I know that I would much rather split my profit with an editor who made my writing sing, than an agent who will work to put my novel in front of publishers who will take an even greater percentage of my profits and demand I write within a bubble. Not only that, but it simply takes too long for publishers to get a book to market. I don't like wondering why the cyber-genius in the latest *insert bestseller* is holding a flip phone. Just my opinion.

I haven't yet. I purchases a hard-copy one a while back but haven't had time to read it. Also, I suppose I should read some -- especially self-pubbed e-books -- since I plan on self-pubbing my own novel as an e-book.

I've read two for my review blog. One was decent, the other not so much. They both shared a common problem of lack of spit and polish. The biggest hurdle in self-publishing is that you don't have the resources that you would at a traditional publisher. Little things like proofreading and typesetting, things that the publisher would normally do for you, a self-pubber has to do themselves. Mistakes are commonplace. However, a good story can shine through these technical issues.

A bigger problem is the lack of a good developmental editor. The author can get pretty far with just beta readers, but nobody's perfect. Without someone with the authority and experience to tell them when they're Doing It Wrong, they wind up sending their novel to print with big problems.

Still and all, there's good stuff out there, too, and the authors apparently think it's worth it. A big part of the appeal is circumventing the long hunt for first an agent and then a publisher when what the author really wants to do is get to the sequel NOW.

-LupLun

I think that it doesn't matter whether or not they use a publisher. The difference? More experienced advertisement. If anything, I have tremendous respect for people who self-publish, because they do it all. (I'm not saying all self published people are geniuses, but if you can make money without an agent and publishing firm, then I tip my hat to you friend.)

Not until I became a self-published author myself. Now I read mostly Indie stuff. I need to support my peers. There's too many polished writers who've been overlooked because of the financial risks involved. My novel won a prestigious award and garnered an agent immediately, but NYC doesn't have the appetite for unknowns. Besides, practically every midlist author on the planet is either trying it, or thinking about trying it. Are you a self-published author if you've had five or ten novels published traditionally, then decide to go Indie? Ask David Morell?
See, the lines are getting blurry, aren't they?

I have read numerous independently-published novels. My only complaint is the need for editing. I liked the books and like the idea of reading what traditional publishing houses have not seen or have rejected.

Yeah, the best books from and best writers, I've read in the last 5 years were all self published. There's such a variety of style's, and subjects that the trad's won't touch.
It's so interesting to see a writer just go for it. and that's the only place you'll find that kind of writing.

As a matter of fact, the book I'm calling as the best of 2011 is a self-published book called Angelfall by Susan Ee. It is not only the best written book I've read this year, but the cover, editing, pace, characterization, and storytelling are so completely professional I doubt most people would even believe it's self-published.

I've read a bunch of self-published books. Most were imaginative and fresh. The quality was fine.

This is fantastic. I haven't read a single post that doesn't highlight some facet of the challenges of self-publishing or have a considered reason for not wanting to read self-published books. There are a lot of self-published authors who do have their books edited, and there are a lot of poorly edited traditionally published books. (There are even a few typos in Hemingway's original "The Sun Also Rises"). To get through 300+ pages without any errors is always an accomplishment regardless of how the book was produced. Since the "guards" are no longer editors, and are usually low-paid and over-worked interns, it only stands to reason that authors, some previously traditionally published, become frustrated with the process and finally decide to self-publish. I do read these books, sometimes out of curiosity, sometimes because I like the author's previous work. There is becoming less and less of a difference between the two!

I have! I read only a few self-published books before my Kindle. I couldn't really justify spending $12 for a paperback that might not be so great and it was very hard to even find indie books. Before I had my Kindle, almost all of my purchases were in brick-and-mortar stores and I only went online to buy a book when I was really looking for something specific.

But now that I've gotten a Kindle, I'm finding all sorts of wonderful indie books. I'm actually a part of an online indie book club where we read a new self-published book a month. Sure, some are duds, but there are also some that have knocked my socks off.

I feel like we're on the brink of something big. Remember when studios wouldn't even look at distributing indie films and then realized they were missing something important? Yes, there were some terrible pictures, but we also got My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Good Will Hunting. I think we're right on the edge of the same thing.

Like indie musicians and indie filmmakers, the indie writer now has more sophisticated tools and freelance resources (artwork, editing services) to amp up the quality of their product.

As a consequence, it is difficult, from formatting and editing and cover design, to tell the self-published work from the large publisher stuff.

I didn't have easy access to self-published books until I discovered ebooks, about four years ago. Since then I've read many, mostly good reads, because I always read the sample before purchasing.

It was one of my Kindle books - didn't know it was self-published, Just liked the premise. I wasn't more than three pages into it before I had that -- Wait a minute -- moment. Checked back on Amazon's website and sure enough -- It was self-published.

How did I know? It just didn't flow. It was choppy and disconnected, conversations were unrealistic, misused (and misspelled) words ... It was a trainwreck! Too bad. I know there are some good ones out there, but this JUNK is dragging them all down . It's that very stigma that prevents my self-publishing my own books.

I've read some self-published books. Some really needed re-writing and more editing. Some were surprisingly good. I tend to read regular published books more often, just because of the higher proportion of quality found amongst them, compared to self-published books. But I have to say, some regular published books are as bad or worse than some self-published books. However, if there's a good story, mistakes can be forgiven.

NOt sure if there's a point to me commenting this late in the game but a couple examples come to mind:

Friend of mine wrote The Shack...I read it in the bathtub after printing it out at work.

Christian Cantrell does really great work...as high quality as many pubd books and better in many cases. I consistently buy and read his work.

I also read Mycelium Running by Paul Stamets...I don't know who the publisher is and I don't care. I assume it's self published though because it's kind of a happy mess.

Self pubbed does not turn me off whatsoever, if the reviews are high and solid.

I actually run a review site for self-published sci-fi and fantasy books. (www.siftreviews.com) Though, if I didn't, I honestly don't know how many self-pubbed books I would read...

I would probably only read a self-published book if it was written by someone whose work I already know and admire, or a very close friend or family member. I realize the occasional best-seller will crop up in these ranks, but so far none has called out to me. As the future of publishing changes, if the quality of self-published books improves, I might be singing a different tune. But for now, I've got too many traditionally published books in the queue.

Yes - my pastor self-publishes. I like him and his books, but know that they are not as professionally done as one that runs the usual gamut. He has the venue to support his self-publishing.

I have a self-published book in my to be read pile, but haven't gotten to it yet. And I plan on buying another soon. But these authors belong to my RWA chapter, and I wanted to support them. They also offered their book in paperback, which is important to me since I don't own a reader. I do look forward to reading them, if only to see if there's any difference between self-pubbed and traditional.

I used to review zines for two publications and would occasionally get sent self-published novels to review as well. It made me really appreciate the value of professional editing.

I've read numerous self-published books and found some are as good as traditionally published books, but most are not. Mainly, I think, because the authors rushed to publish and didn't take the time to done that last one or two critical polishing. I self-published my own suspense novel, Tangled Webs, and have had really good feedback from readers. I wish I'd had someone else proofread it, though; some typos did slip through. But I see that now with even the big NYC publishers. With ebooks becoming so popular, I think we'll be seeing more and more self-published books coming down the pike. Those who will prevail are those who take the time to learn their craft and polish to the hilt

I love reading and reviewing self-published books. Of course there are some that aren't up to par, but I've discovered quite a few that are really great like Amy Romine's and Mian Mohsin Zia's works. I went from traditional publishing to self-publishing myself. It's been a true adventure!

Yes (full disclosure, I am also a self-published author) but I was reading self-pubbed books before I went that route. I am fairly selective, so I find that 70% or so of what I pick up is good or great. I have found some phenomenal self-published books lately.

I've only read one self-published book. There were so many typos, wrong punctuation, bad dialogue, and a storyline that wasn't consistent. The book was a poster child for what not to do.
I was really disappointed one of the author's friends hadn't read the manuscript before it was published.
Or maybe they did and hadn't been honest.
Either way it was torture to read.

More people than they realize have probably read a self-published story but may not realize it, unless they do a filter for books published by the Big 6 and their imprints and anything calling itself a small press.

I self-pubbed a book to make it a nice package for friends and family that were interested in getting it. I've read some wonderful self-published books, like The Devil to Pay by Maria Zannini. I got a few more in my reading queue.

I read books, not publishers. I don't go, "OOh, that St. Martins Press release is Hot!" or "Check out that new Simon and Schuster cause it's smoking!". I read Hunger Games, My Blood Approves, Clockwork Angel and Leviathan - traditionally published or self-published matters not.

As a writer, I check the acknowledgements to make myself aware of the agents or publishers of various genres and authors I like. But I could really care less as a reader, unless it's some sweet gush over someone being a deep inspiration.

After reading many comments this evening, perhaps the comparison should not be self-pub'd vs. traditionally pub'd, but rather quality/meticulous publication (by a NYC house or indie publisher) vs. more hastily published material. Just like any industry, often the less ideal ones give a bad name to the rest of us. Don't we all know a family-owned coffee place just as awesome as Starbucks? How about a personal trainer just as educated and qualified as Jillian Michaels? Don't any of us have friends who can out-cook Giada in the kitchen? Where would we be if only celebrities and big box stores and huge companies and books ONLY published by the NY houses made it? There will be lesser quality products in any industry, not just publishing, and just because an author self publishes on their own, or works with an independent/hybrid publisher does not mean the work is crap. Are we judging the work based on typos or content? We've all read traditionally published books purchased at B&N that weren't great, but perhaps the author was a celebrity. Let's not fool ourselves that agents/publishers are always looking for the best stories--often it comes down to what's going to sell. Please don't tell me that Snookie's book (Jersey Shore) is deep, existensial material! If Paris Hilton wrote a book, it would be picked up immediately--but how would any of us rate the content?! They say imitation is the best form of flattery, and many of us indie authors 'look up' to traditionally pub'd books as a standard to strive for, and obsess over every detail of our books in order to measure up. Just because we financed it and did it without an agent we are being penalized? Doesn't seem fair, especially when all the literature is telling authors now that even the big NY houses do much less than in the past to promote books, and it is up to ALL authors to do promote their work.

I've read self-published material, but only when the author was a friend, which seems a bit of a trend from the comments. My agent hasn't been able to place my first novel (which won several prestigious awards) but I'm planning on a major re-write, not self publishing. It's difficult to get in print through the main stream publishers, but what chance does a novel have without their backing, unless it's got a very targeted audience?

I find it interesting that so many people note typos as one of the greatest weaknesses of self-published books, but then note that traditionally published books sometimes have that too, as if that puts them on equal terms.

In my opinion, typos (though distracting) are often the least of a self-published book's problems. Of the few self-published books I have read I was more turned off by weakness of craft, namely prose, characterization, dialogue, exposition, pacing, etc.

That said, I'm always open to reading a self-published book if it comes recommended by someone I trust.

Yes, quite a lot of them actually. Mostly I've been pleased. There are some duds, but if you check out the first few pages you almost always know what you're in for before you buy.

To be honest, the folks that have read one bad self-pubbed book and have sworn off all of them really confuse me. So, every book they've read from commercial publishers must have been fantastic? I've had a totally different experience.

I've read a couple of excellent self-published novels, but I should point out the authors were accomplished writers who put a lot of time into getting the manuscripts edited properly and getting professional-looking covers.
These days, there are more options available to avoid an amateurish feel to self-publication. However, if the writing is amateurish nothing will save the book.

Content is the important issue. If it's good then who care if it's self-published or not! Self-published print books I don't read, but about 1/2 the ebooks I read are self-published. As an ebook formatter, I'm pretty critical of all ebooks, not just the self-published ones. Even well-established publishers can put out some really sloppy ebooks. But then I don't think I've ever read a print book that didn't have one or two (or more) issues with typos, grammar, continuity, etc.

I've been hearing a lot about self-published books among bloggers now. Unfortunately, I've never read one but I'm definitely interested on reading one.

I've read several for pleasure on my Kindle, and worked on several as a freelance copy editor. I would say most have their story values down pretty solid, but the writing quality varies wildly. But that's okay; that's what copy editors are for.

I can say this: I know dozens of self-published authors who put their manuscripts through a torture test not unlike those given to traditionally published fare. I never get a manuscript before it's been gone over by a number of critique partners or beta readers, and at least one rewrite after that process. Some of my clients hire story editors (ones that have been laid off by publishers are cheap and plentiful) as well. I provide copy-editing, and then a proofreader is hired to come in and sweep up the trimmings behind me after another revision. I also red-flag problems with the narrative if I come across them, and usually the author will fix those problems before moving the manuscript down the line to their hired cover designer, layout artist and e-book formatter.

Are they great books? No, as the authors themselves have told me. Most are formulaic genre fare. But I have no doubt they deliver just what the readers of those genres love. And that's a source of justifiable pride.

Jim Thomsen
[email protected]

Yes. Also full disclosure: I am a self-published writer.

But one of the self-published books I read, "Patches of Grey" by Roy L. Pickering, impressed me so much I keep promoting it. It's an up-to-date coming of age story that makes Holden Caulfield of Catcher in the Rye look like the spoiled, rich, self-absorbed white preppy kid he actually was. Pickering's "kids" are going to public school in The Bronx. Now. Today.

I've been an avid reader since before I tried seriously writing my own stories. Many of the literary works I've read were originally self-published, or published by friends who happened to have the means (a printing press) to make a small print run--such as Ernest Hemingway's "three stories and ten poems," and "in our time," published by Robert McAlmon's Contact Press; James Joyce's "Ulysses," published essentially on the same press by his friend Sylvia Beach; even the Travels of Marco Polo and Caesar's Campaigns.

Particularly during times of political upheaval, or repression, writers have found ways to get their works out--via friends, via a small printing press, via a "mimeograph machine" (yes, I remember those) and now via the internet and ebooks.

Benjamin Franklin was the father of American printing. He published his own works, and newspapers. Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) essentially was self-published, and published his friends--sometimes just to help them economically, as in the case of one of the seminal works of American literature, The Memoirs of U.S. Grant.

I don't ONLY read self-published works. But I don't ONLY read "traditionally" published works either.

Who was Shakespeare's publisher? Who was his agent?

Not every self-published author is Shakespeare, or Twain, or Joyce. Or Pat Conroy. Nor is every traditionally published writer worthy of the Nobel prize for literature.

Everytime you buy a book, buy a sandwich, go to a movie, you take a risk. Your money is gone before you know if you like what you've purchased.

Sometimes, you feel cheated. Sometimes, you feel like the reward overwhelms the risk enough to try it again.

I hope people read self-published books. I hope they read more of them. I hope they read mine.

I would like to submit another challenge. My book, Children of Dreams, is published POD. I would like some more reviews. For anyone who wants to read it, I will send you a free copy for an honest review. It reads as fiction, but is nonfiction. Want an inspirational story with a Christian worldview? Here it is.

I will put my self-published book up against any traditional published book out there. I have 50 reviews on Amazon with five-stars and I want 100.

If I can do anything to eliminate the negative image associated with self-published books, I am ready for the challenge.

Please email me at [email protected] and let me know if you are interested. This is an alternate email that I use for purposes like this.

I tried to read a couple, but they were so dearly in need of editors, layout artists, book design, etc., that it was embarrassing. And, in all fairness, I did think the ideas were good and the characters and plot intriguing, but it was just falling apart in the lack of editing in a very obvious way and I couldn't go on.

word verification: quedit

I haven't read any self-published, but I have listened to a podcast self-published books. I wouldn't mind reading them, it's simply that they're harder to get a grasp of. Especially since most of my latest book purchases were from Borders sales. I don't have the money to spend on any type of book for awhile now.

Yes. Publisher's cred has gone the way of dodo a long, long time ago.

Taking some wisdom from Dave Canterbury, books need to appeal to the common man, not the MFA graduate. Sometimes I think NY doesn't get it.

I read a self-published book a long time ago. It was written by a one of my first crit group friends. Honestly, it needed fact checking. Editing wouldn't have hurt.

I'm reading a self-published book by a friend I've never met in person. I like it so far. Seems quite polished.

I have a few other self-published books in my TBR stack. Just haven't gotten to them yet. They are all by writer friends or recommended by writer friends.

I have read three self-published books: one by my aunt and two by Amanda Hocking. I was intrigued by all the hype surrounding Hocking and genuinely impressed by the number of books she has written, not to mention sold. So I picked up My Blood Approves and Switched.

Frankly, it was apparent within a couple of pages why she wasn't able to find a publisher. And it's not because of typos or editing problems. The quality just isn't there, neither in the story/characters nor in the writing itself.

My aunt self-published a novel about 6 months ago, and I (of course) read it. I love my aunt, but her book was terrible -- barely readable. Again, it wasn't because of typos; she is simply not meant to be a fiction writer.

I don't think I will pick up a self-published book again, unless I personally know the author. And I can't imagine ever paying for one (even Hocking's 99 cent books I got from the library). Traditionally published books can also be terrible, of course, but generally not in the same way or to the same degree.

So even though I have been rejected several times over by them, I believe in the literary gatekeepers. (Though I suppose the fact that Hocking has landed a traditional publishing deal with the Tryll trilogy means that even traditional publishers may not be trustworthy anymore.)

Yes, I have paid good money for and have read a self-published book. I have to say that I was shocked at the poor editing and the number of typos. If what I read was representative of self-publishing, I wouldn't want to go that route.

Yes, I've read several self-published books. For research, particularly on unusual topics, self-published non-fiction can be very useful and some of the few resources available.

I tend to check reviews and read samples before buying any books (SP, indie or big six).

I’ve read quite a few self-published books. Two I’ve read recently are:

The Silence of Medair by Andrea K. Host. This novel was an Aurealis Award Finalist. After reading THE SILENCE OF MEDAIR, I purchased almost all the author’s other publications because her writing is fantastic, intelligent and well-edited.

Calling Crow by Paul Clayton. The novels in this series were originally published by Putnam/Berkely, but are now self-published. After reading CALLING CROW, I purchased all the other books in this series because the story is fascinating, and the writing and editing are excellent.

I read self-published, indie-published and traditionally published books. I’m way behind in reading because I’m still wrestling with editing the third rewrite for my own science fiction novel, but I’ve recently purchased an incredible number of self-published books. Here are some treasures I found and reasons why I purchased them:

Wired by Douglas E. Richards. The eBook is only 79 cents on Kindle and the author’s received excellent reviews by Asimov's Science Fiction magazine, Kirkus, School Library Journal, Odyssey Magazine, and more.

Selection Event by Wayne Wightman – This book has received excellent reviews, including a statement by Orson Scott Card in which he says that he looks for books by Wayne Wightman.

Replica by Lexi Revellian – Her self-published books are selling well and receiving great reviews.

Three stories by Douglas Smith, currently FREE on Kindle – all with fantastic reviews and all were a Finalist or Winner in the Aurora Awards:
By Her Hand She Draws You Down
and
Going Harvey in the Big House
and
Scream Angel.

I’ve also purchased quite a few self-published books that were previously published by the big publishing houses, including ATLANTIS and other books by:
Bob Mayer
and
Kristine Kathryn Rusch - She is the only person to have ever won a Hugo Award for editing and a Hugo Award for fiction.

...I could continue because I’ve purchased A LOT of self-published books in the past couple of years, but this post is getting rather long.

I decided to be open-minded about self-published books after your posts earlier in the year. I read the Trylle Trilogy by Amanda Hocking and Vegas Moon by John Locke. The latter didn't seem that different from a trad published book, except it was shorter. But he was traditionally published first, isn't that right? Amanda Hocking's books needed some polishing, both in terms of typos and story development, but for 99 cents I got a few hours of entertainment and felt like I got value for money. I'm glad she's been picked up by a traditional published because I think she has so much promise and she'll be writing some cracking books with the help of a publisher.

Anyway, I'm now open to reading self-published books, but they would need to come with some serious recommendations because of the lack of gatekeepers.

Again, not I said the fly.

Bransford, you own, my gut tells me - the most reader friendly, clever Blog.

But the best is your Post summation.

Sheila Cull

Funny you should mention this - I read my first self-pubbed book recently (The Emperor's Edge by Lindsay Buroker). You can read my detailed thoughts at www.brouhahababy.blogspot.com but to summarise - I've read worse. Leaving all the speculation to one side, I enjoyed reading it and didn't regret my purchase.

I've read several of them - usually in the non-fiction realm. Most of them were self-serving and pretty useless, but a few were golden. You don't have to be traditionally published to have a book of value, but it does help the potential reader.

I skimmed a self published poetry book once and it was ok....but I read The Fiddler's Gun by Pete Peterson and it was _excellent_--I'm hoping to try other self pubbed work, but I'm pretty choosey. Of course...I'm pretty choosey about what traditionally published work I read...

Yes, I read Three Dreams Ago by Karen Channon and enjoyed it thoroughly. It is a memoir of her childhood battle with leukemia and her journey into adulthood.

I have heard/read that memoirs are among the most difficult types stories to pitch to traditional publishers because they are so personal in nature (unless, of course, the author is famous in their own right already). That said, I found Karen's story to be heart-warming and thought-provoking.

I haven't read a self-pubbed book yet. I started one recently and it wasn't bad but I haven't had time to get back to it to see if it holds up. On the other hand, I have read A LOT of traditionally published books that have so many problems I truly wonder how they got through. I use the sample feature on my Kindle whenever possible before buying ANY book, self-pubbed or not.

My response is biased - I'm one of those self-published authors.

For those who have commented that they would never read a self-published novel, all I can say is, too bad. You're missing out on some really well written stories for less than the cost of a cup of coffee.

Yes, there are a lot of rat turds among the SP, but using the "look inside" feature will quickly tell you whether it's worth a full read.

There are a couple of things that traditionally published authors have over their SP "cousins":
Professional editors and marketing pros.

As to the editors - there are plenty of quality non-professional editors around and the serious SP writers are using them.

Marketing is, for me, the only real advantage of the traditional group. Sometimes I feel like a second class citizen when approaching distribution companies, reviewers and even Amazon's own "Shelfari" group; all of whom are not eager and often hostile to the idea of supporting a SP author.

But, as the black folks chanted in the early 1960's, "we shall overcome". They did, and so shall the serious SP authors...;o)

I love your blog for many reasons. But one reason why I love it is because it's so interesting to read the comments.

And the comment thread patterns, too. You've written smart, educated blog posts that are equal to any mainstream articles in mainstream publications and you've been lucky to get 23 comments at the most. And then you ask one simple question, "Have Your Ever Read a Self-Published Books?" and you get over 200 hundred comments.

I love it. The possibilities are endless :)

I've read several self-published books, and I've self-published one book.

The worst bok I've ever read was self-published, but it was the only self-pubbed book I read that was awful. The grammar/punctuation typos and story were so bad it was almost funny. Almost. Most of the self-pubbed books have been cometitive (in quality of story and writing) to the traditionally published books I read.

The second worst book I've read in terms of typos was a Kindle version of a popular book published by a major publisher. I was shocked at the frequency of typos-no doubt from the print conversion-and it seemed not a single person had proofed the ebook before releasing it (and charging $9.99 for it was kind of insulting to me as a consumer).

These days I don't even check if a book is self-pubbed or not...If the story is intriguing, I'll consider it.

WORD VERIFICATION: hythe. His, with a bad lisp.

I read self-published books - as long as they hold the same standards as traditionally published ones.

I've read a wide variety of quality with self-published, from stellar, highly polished writing, to badly formatted, mistake-filled crap.

Generally I won't pull the trigger on a self-published book unless it's either free or cheap, or I've read enough of the book or the author's work to know I'll like it.

It's a gamble, but then, I've also read traditionally published stuff that was utter crap.

Either way, good writing, editing and polishing makes for a good book. And bad books are bad books, whether self- or traditionally published.

Read them, loved them, and would be happy to read more.

I actually run a podcast reviewing self-pubbed books, so I've read quite a few.

To me, the quality varies a lot. Some of them I love. But I have certainly seen some that I wouldn't view as "publishable" quality. Some are quite amateur, but a lot just have a few clumsy bits, and feel like the first work by someone who has every chance of turning into a terrific writer.

Vetting seems like the biggest thing self-pubbed books are lacking. If this publishing model is going to succeed long-term, that's the thing that will need to be replaced somehow--reviewers, or crowd-sourcing, or what-have-you.

I actually loved the self published book. The only thing I noticed, was it lacked the polishing that makes a professionally published book so pristine.

My mother sent me a self-published book as a gift. I think the 7th word of the book was spelled wrong. I never read past that...

I've read 23 books since Christmas, on my new Kindle. Didn't think I'd like it but received it as a gift and love it. For a variety of reasons, I can read much more quickly than my usual pace.

Yes, I've purchased self-published books. Yes, I like them. Yes, I will continue to do so. The majority of what I've read since Christmas has been self-published. It is interesting to me that the only two self-published books that I've regretted buying, were both paperbacks and both purchased years ago.

I have also regretted buying some "traditionally" published books over the years.

I have read some self-published books. I have to say, the errors and stuff do bother me, but often it is the odd turn of plot or poor characterization that bothers me more.

To make a comparison: self-pubbed versus professionally edited is a little unfair and inaccurate, I think. Many self-pubbed authors do seek out professional line-editing help, but fail to seek out editors that may impact their content. I think this is natural, since the choice to self-pub is not always due to the author's inability to make it through the editorial gauntlet.

In addition, as has been pointed out here, even editors make errors. I just finished THE ROAD by McCormac. At least in the paperback version, there were a number of errors and gaffs.

This debate really comes down to taste and affiliation. The self-pubbed folks have done a marvelous job of marketing their brand, have developed a readership despite the lack of consistent quality across the field, and pose a legitimate threat in the failing market.

As readers buy less books in total, as more books than ever are crammed into the marketplace to compete, self-pubbed authors are finding a niche. The question is: is this niche a foothold that turns into a plateau or is it merely a tenuous position that will be swallowed up by whatever future iteration of Amazon/B & N/Apple?

I meant copy-editor. Not line editor.

I have read tried to read a few self published books. I have yet to make it through one.

I've read books by two different self-published authors. One book was being promoted by an agent who just happened to like the book and had not been hired by the author. It was basically an endorsement by a professional. I really, really, liked that book - it had no pretensions and some mistakes but for what it was, it fulfilled expectations and I would purchase the book and others by that author.

The other author attracted me at first and I thought showed some power of mind... but on reading the books I always felt there was something missing or something "off" when I compared the quality of writing, editing, and storytelling with the very high price he was charging. I actually corresponded with the author for a few months. He turned out to be mentally ill. He also related experiences of trying to get published and being told he had talent but would never be published because of lack of broad appeal. By the time I ended correspondence with this person he was pressuring me to write reviews for his books and purchase his outrageously over-priced volumes.

My take-away... there is and always will be a lack of prestige with self-published books. You just don't know what you are getting. A certain number of quality-filters such as endorsements from professional or otherwise qualified people is something that would encourage me to buy a book. I would probably stay away from someone who was completely going it on his own in future.

I suppose I should elucidate the point of the second author's attempt to get published. Like many narcissistic people, he was unwilling to adapt his work to professional standards, feeling attacked by the slightest criticism. He overvalued his work. (When he asked me to review one of his books, he instructed me to describe it as a masterpiece.) Obviously this is a one-time experience and I'm not trying to say it's characteristic. There are many reasons why people self publish, especially in the changing market. The experience simply made me aware that there are still people who do it because they are too mal-adjusted, conceited, and/or sensitive to try to meet professional standards or work with others. I would be far more inclined to try an author who was self-publishing or e-publishing through a service that provides some filtering or editing.

I've read a lot of self-pubbed books. Some of them are very well-done. Some are crap. But then, the same can be said of traditionally-published books.

Yes, I enjoyed the self-pubbed book. I am looking forward to the next in the series. I can see where a little editing might have been helpful here and there, but overall, it was a good experience.

In response to Alana Roberts' comments, I am a Roberts, so her name caught my attention, I would urge her to trust the capitalist system. The best will always rise to the top. It's not the way it's published, but the end result that the end user cares about.

Those books that are poor, whether mainline-published or self-published, will never do well. The market will dictate those that are the best in a free capitalist system. There will always be choice, which is good for the consumer. They choose the best.

The problem for self-published books is not the way they are published, but the ability to market them afterwards. I started the John 3:16 Marketing Network to address this issue. It's a revolutionary way to market books with no cost to the members.

There will not always be a lack of prestige with self-published books. That is the wave of the future.

I am excited about the future, ebooks, and all the rest. As long as authors are willing to invest themselves and their work to the max, they have a chance. They aren't limited by a system that is unwilling to take monetary risks on unknown authors.

I've read a few self-published books, and only one of them was not ready for publication. The others ranged from competently-written to well-written. Most of my reading has been from traditional publishers, including many books that were not ready for publication (probably would have been rejected by the garbage man, in fact). Certainly a lot more questionable writing is self-published than traditionally published because it's so easy and inexpensive to do and many self-publishers don't rely heavily enough on feedback or they publish before their work is ready for publication. But to say everything that is self-published is of questionable quality is like saying that everything that is traditionally published is of excellent quality--neither statement is true. Folks who claim they don't read self-published books probably are not familiar with the histories of some now famous books. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example, was self-published because Mark Twain was weary of "the foolishness" of his publishers.

I've read more self-published books than I can count. I've enjoyed many of them. Most were a little outside the box or in some way something a traditional publisher would not accept. That did not diminish the quality of the story. Quite the opposite, actually, I found them very refreshing. I continue to read a combination of self-published and traditionally published books. The only major thing that diminishes the value and quality of a self-published book and gives self-published books a bad rap in general is lack of editing. Editing is important.

Every self-published boo I read were simply awful. And there's a whole lot I didn't even finished.

I've read a few, though I've only been able to finish about 25% of the self pub books I've read, whereas I'd say I finish about 90% of the traditional books. One that I really liked was The Black God's War by Moses Siregar.

I've read more than one. Some I've liked, some I haven't. I'm being more cautious lately. I won't read one unless I can read a solid sample first. I won't be so picky if I know the author and have liked his/her other books. As Amber said way back in the comments (she's #2), if the storyline pulls me along, I can overlook some of the "little" things like typos and formatting problems, and what today seems to be a constant repetition of the characters' names when a pronoun will do nicely and not stick its finger in my eye! I can overlook them if they're not too glaring. Sometimes they are. But then recently I read a book by one of the "big" publishers and found a lot of such problems. I don't know what's happened with editing in the last ten years!
Ann Best, Author of In the Mirror, A Memoir of Shattered Secrets

Yes, even before I became a self-published author, I read self-published works because I like to buy "cheap" books. I have a hard time sometimes finding a traditional print author that I like so it is easy to buy and try out a book for $2.99 or even 99 cents. I have found many that were quite good. You can usually tell by the book description and reviews if it is worth your while. When in doubt, you can download a sample. I don't see that traditionally printed books are any better (or worse) than self-published books. You will find gems and stinkers either way.

I'm a successful print published author. (Stats below for those who have an 'hmm' look on their faces.) But I chose to go the self-publication route for ebook editions and I was blown away. What I found was that because I have so many books published in so many diverse editions around the world, some going out of print, others not yet published, etc, readers can't get hold of my entire body of work in a single bookstore, online or traditional. But the moment I began offering my self-published ebook editions, I started receiving requests for subscriptions to entire series and to ALL my work. It was quite amazing. I sold more in four months than an individual publisher in any territory - even a major US publisher in the US, for instance - was selling the traditional route.

eBooks sell like blazes if you're successful as an author, have built reader trust and loyalty, and can reach readers more easily through self-publication.

I'm now revamping my website and have hired people to handle the second wave, starting November. Since I began self-publishing, I started reading a number of self-published authors and books. Most are amateurish as people here have already commented but then again, so are most traditionally published books, in my opinion. The ones that are good are just as good as traditionally published authors or books. It's not the form or the medium, it's the content. An expensive hardcover doesn't guarantee a great book, neither does a free ebook always have to be lousy.

The world is changing, for the better. I still ten way more from traditional publishing advances than my self-published ebooks but the reader feedback and satisfaction is ten times more from the ebooks. Go figure. There's also the thrill of dealing directly with readers, selling them ebooks at a fraction of the print price, yet earning more than I earned from print editions. It's a total win-win!

And yes, I'm staying anonymous by choice but I'm the real thing.

(Stats as promised - over 1.2 million in worldwide sales, 56 countries, 23 books so far over almost as many years in 12 languages. Earn the equivalent of US$ five-figure advances per book in my own country for local publishing rights--times are good, our economy is booming here, book sales are growing fantastically. US and UK rights sales through my agents are actually just gravy on the meat. eBooks are now fast becoming the potatoes and bread.)

Have a great day!

I've read self-published books before, but only in the non-fiction section. Self-pubbed fiction? No thanks...

While I haven't read any self-published books, I do think the trend may be coming (if not already here). It will be interesting to see how the publishing world survives and evolves during this economy (like the rest of us). I'm glad I found your blog!

The best self-published book I've ever read was later published by a big publishing house. I haven't been impressed by most of the ones I've picked up, though. Usually they're poorly written, or poorly plotted, or have characters I really don't care for, or all of the above and more.

I recently read two self-published non-fiction books about obscure Civil War topics. One was well-written, well-edited, and very well-researched. The other was badly written, barely covered the topic, and contained no information that I hadn't already read elsewhere.

I've never read a self-published novel all the way through, although I've tried a couple times.

I stumbled upon your blog looking for an non mysterious, un-thrilling and suspense-less answer to the difference between: thriller, suspense and mystery. Then began to jump around your blogs. They are great! helpful, specific, concise and well written. Thanks. Kudos!!

I have read them, but I cant say I have really liked them. They lack a certain glam finesse that traditionally published books have.I must admit - they are getting better, but still.
I came across mistakes, grammatical issues, and all sorts of other things that grated on my nerves like over-describing.
I believe that if you are going to self publish, you make damn sure that the manuscript is polished within an inch of it's bloody life before you press print on it. And that includes having a team of beta's and critique partners in tow, as well as a proof reader. If you can put together a team like that - then you might actually have a chance at being successful.

I sample several self-published books every week. I discard most of them but if I like them enough to buy the whole book, I write a review. I get a lot of excitement from some of these books. I've found literary stories better than any I've seen in traditional literary outlets and I've found quirky stories I've enjoyed that I think traditional publishers would steer well clear of. I've found some novels I would recommend to others. The most exciting thing about these books is that the authors are unafraid to express their personalities. That is very unusual in old-style publishing where authors always seem to be trying to be someone else or to disappear completely, with the exception of those writing celebrity biographies, which publishers love and which I hate.

Vanessa Wu

We all need someone to supervise our efforts. We all have blind spots. But I think some of the negative feedback that I've been reading has come from the fact that the reader knew upfront it was a self-published effort.

Give a self-published horror novel to someone saying, "Hey, check out the latest Stephen King!" And that someone might look at it through the filter of expectation of a great horror ride.

What did Churchill say? "Give a man a hammer and everything begins to look like a nail."

I have read a few self published books. I prefer to not read more. Some have been well done, with only a few minor editing issues that could have used some help. Others...not so much.

Unfortunately, the poorly done ones have created a stigma for me. If I know a book is self published, I'm a lot less likely to actually purchase it.

If I continually hear good things about a self published book, I may then look at a sample and make a judgement call that way, but even still I'm very leery. I hope that stigma will change someday, but as self publishing is a growing trend, I'm not sure it will. Sadly.

Self pub tends to be hit and miss, even with the descriptions authors can put in. Sometimes a bad description is a fantastic novel and vice versa.

I always, ALWAYS take the time to at least rate the book, and if it's good I leave a review. (If it isn't good, I leave a rating and delete the book.) The kindest thing a reader can do is review the book and spread the word!

The first SPB I read was a story about a girl’s battle with herself and her addiction to drugs and alcohol.

It was a heart wrenching read mostly because the writers’ truth, fears and courage dealing with her difficult life were not edited by an overzealous editor. The shocking and courageous struggle was raw and untouched with her voice booming through convincingly. Because of this the story was a powerful read.

The only thing that let the book down was the spelling, grammar and punctuation. If this book had been a polished piece of work it would have been extraordinary.

I’m happy I read it. For me it was an amazing read although as someone who enjoys editing I couldn’t help but edit as I read.

Even so, I could feel the strength and hope in this sad yet inspiring true story made so much the better because it was all true and written from the heart of a broken young girl.

I sent my self-published book to a contest, did not win. Read a couple of the other entries. I thought they were very good, that I had a tough competition. My book did not win. Other authors commented on the novels that had won first and second prize that they were not good at all. I agreed that, at least the other novels I had read, were a lot better.

I eagerly read a few self-pubbed books as I was excited to see what they had to offer. Sadly, I've been rather disappointed in the quality of the writing. The editing has been horrible (or non-existent). I know there must be some excellent authors who have gone the self-pubbed route, but I'm still looking for them. I haven't given up yet, but I'm not as eager as I was at first, and I'm being much more selective. I have also encountered the same issues with a few books put out by smaller presses. I don't think anyone can call one way of doing things all good or all bad, but right now, traditionally pubbed are ahead as far as what I have personally read. I just want to read a good book. I don't care how it got out there.

I haven't read a self-published book yet, but that's not because I wouldn't. The fact is, even with traditionally published books, I just don't have the time to wade through all the titles. I rely on book blogs to help me determine what to put on my TBR list. Once I find blogs I trust that provide a similar service for self-published titles, I'll gladly add them to my list.

I read most recently RED HOT PROPERTY BY DEVIN O'BRANAGHAN and thoroughly enjoyed it. She had been with a big publishing house but decided she didn't like all the politics and went the self-publishing route. She does have an agent and I would assume an editor because the writing was crisp, clean and without error. I think editing by an outsider is so crucial if you're going to self-publish.

I've read self-published e-books. One or two were entertaining, most of them were boring and poorly edited. Now I always read the free sample before buying. I was betrayed one too many times by the author's friends giving 5-star reviews to trust the ratings alone.

MLR

Good discussion! I'm going to be self-publishing with my bestie and former S&S editor. I'll still be writing my series for S&S, but want to try publishing e-books, too.

I've read many self published titles. Many have had challenges and need some work, but I have also read quite a few good ones. Those that were good, had professional editing and proofreading services done on them.

I create eBooks, so many of my clients are self pub authors, so I've seen a lot come across my screen. The key to anything you do yourself is still spend the money to get it right, otherwise, it's a waste of a lot of time and energy that readers will vent about later on.

Erik

Is it terribly judgmental of me to notice that the comments in this thread praising self-published books tend to be the more awkwardly-written ones?

I've got one of those MFA's, and long ago thought I was going to have a career. (Having a short story accepted once in a prestigious (now long defunct) literary mag probably helped propel my delusions). I likely would have kept my unpublished novel in a virtual closet had I not discovered a couple of outstanding self-published books. I've since read more. There is a lot of interesting stuff slipping through the cracks, but you do have to look for it and that can be tricky. When I see the more literary types who refuse to take the plunge, I wonder if they lack confidence in their own ability to tell dross from gold, and so prefer to depend on corporate gatekeepers to keep them from making fools of themselves.

I have had some great luck with self-published books. One author who comes to mind is Simon Wood. I liked the books of his that I have read.

Draven Ames

I read self-published books, mainly by authors I know who ask me to. I read them if they have a print version, as I don't like to read digitally. I've come across some gems, a couple of excellent ones, especially by traditionally published authors who left their publishers behind, and many that...aren't excellent. There are poor traditionally published books, too, of course, but crudely speaking, the balance I've found still seems to be that more self-published books suffer from craft mistakes and not being "ready" than published ones.

As a writer for DamnInteresting.com, I've researched Springheel Jack, Mad Jack Churchill, The Killdozer, Jim Corbett, Virgina Hall, Highrise Syndrome, Vibrators, Vaseoline, dogs trained to fight tank, Mike the Headless Chicken ... list goes on and on.

Recently though I sat with a few scientists from the University of Utah and discussed forcefields. It was pretty wow.

Strangest that wasn't sexually explicit would be what the laws are regarding paternity rights for a child born of rape. The answer is that it varies by state, with some silent on the matter and others specifying that no parental rights would be granted to the rapists. This assumes that the sexual assault can be proven, which can get tricky all on its own.

Hermaphrodites (now Intersex), Freak Shows of the 1970s and Carnival Slang.

The different area of the brain that affect cognitive decisions. (Needed this for my completed multidraft sci-fi novel)

Also I research a lot at the NASA site in regard to galaxy outerwear, and where to go in the solar systems, etc. That's not strange though, it's highly enjoyable. But maybe more than I need to know at times.

What I found more intriguing was studying the results of different methods of murder in my forensics book. This is for the mystery which is WIP.

I like research, and I watch the news for new developments which might affect what I'm writing. (e.g., can I use that in my novel or a future one?) I'm just looking for material, you understand.

Now I'm intrigued Nathan, that you were searching for info of a certain time period. Is this a teaser for your next novel, Nathan?

Not really weird research, but funny:

A few years back I was surfing through baby name sites to find the perfect name for a character and my husband came up behind me to ask me something.

He stopped mid-sentence, got a little pale and said, "Um. Is there something you need to tell me?"

I couldn't stop laughing for quite a while!

As a writer of some urban noir, my research tends to take me into the darker side of crime. For a short story I was working on I needed to research life in prisons, and I spent two or three days reading every kind of article imaginable about life on the inside, including correspondence between inmates and people on the outside......my wife used the computer after I was done (and failed to clean up the history) and had some significant questions about my own past. It took a lot of persuasive skills to convince her I was neither a hardened criminal hiding my own past nor thinking about starting some kind of pen pal relationship with convicts.....

If there was a saving grace it was that readers of the story loved the "authentic voice" of life on the inside....

Or it could be the time I took my wife deep into the heart of the New Jersey Pine Barrens to research locations for a novel (after telling her stories about the Pine Barrens being a dumping ground for mob victims from both NYC and Philly). After driving a couple of miles down a sandy/dirt road with no signs of civilization she called my mother and told her she was convinced I was trying to kill her and dump her body.....

She really does put up with a lot of crap from me in my pursuit of a writing career.

I researched a cult known as Raliens. It's a UFO cult known for their pro stance on human cloning and basically lots of sex. They believe that the world was created by aliens who will only return once humans learn to get along with each other.

The differences in slang words in Glaswegian and Edinburgh Scots, the construction/use/care of body bags, the disposal of blood at a mortuary, bird strikes, chicken cannons (not joking), laws about drying laundry outdoors, condominium swimming pool safety laws, automatic dog bath machines in Japan, the training of border collies to herd geese off golf courses.
The chicken cannons were my favorite. :)

While it had a bit of tough competition, I think the strangest thing I ever researched was what types of arson actually constitute federal as opposed to state crimes without the arson occurring on federal land. On the other hand, the information has since come in useful (or at least come up in conversation) so it's more than paid off.

This was a hands-on research project...you know, practicing The Method form of writing:

It was for a short story about a kidnapping and I had my brother (only do this stuff with people you trust) shut me in two different car trunks.

The first one was an older Buick--trunk is roomy and super, super dark. And yes, it gets hot as hell really fast.

The second one was a 2002 Chevy Cavalier and you know what I learned? There are panic handles in newer cars that glow in the dark so you can release the trunk from inside. When I magically opened the trunk, I suprise my brother. =)

As an editor I once had to edit an erotic short story. Without going into detail, I had to research the word beaver.

Recent research:

Cock fighting rings and their construction.

The Euterpe genus of plants (includes hearts of palm and acai).

Common North Korean first and last names. Fun fact: 50% of Koreans have one of three surnames: Kim, Lee, or Park.

Oh, where do I start, LOL. DNA (review to make sure I got my facts right), vampires history and current, same for werewolves. The strangest is probably months of serial killer mindset. Fascinating and scary.

How about the interior of the sun? It's 30 million degrees hot but ten times denser than lead. That's so weird I can't visualize it at all.

Prostitution, and the disturbing thing is that some books that claim to be serious memoirs by former prostitutes are actually just a rather icky form of erotica.

mine is IS IT BENEFICIAL FOR A PERSON TO CHANGE HIS/HER HOBBY TO CAREER ?

http://www.javidsuleymanli.com/2011/02/ghjgjh.html

What really goes on in a restaurant. While that in itself isn't strange, I interviewed a restaurant manager who started out business like, then discovered I was writing a romance novel. Next thing I know, she had the chef make me my own woodfire pizza and was telling me stories about how she'd caught staff having sex on the bar top. Not even kidding.

Stink Lily

Among others, indoor mold and its policy implications (months and months of tedious research and writing, for a policy report). I research lots of odd little things for my weekly column -- follow-ups on long-ago news items on which I do riffs.

The list is too long to include. I'm a weird one. Off the top of my head I remember:

*Teaching myself tarot for a series of short stories.
*Researching the neurology of the brain so I could figure out where to take out a chunk and put in an external interface for quick contact communication.
*Specific issues and symptoms of drowning and encephalitis.
*Where to mine tungsten.
*Many related to swordsmithing.
*Model of guns used as sidearms by the ATF.
*Coast Guard/Navy locations near Pensacola that might be associated with tropical storms.

Believe me, that's barely the tip of the iceberg. I love learning.

In the past few months, I've researched Mithraic pirate cults, Karabasan (aka sleep paralysis), tree house hotels and the Poyraz wind. And one castle made with milk-based mortar.

Stinkhorn mushrooms.
And they REALLY do.

Also a 16th century Italian cook who first documented boiled bagels and had a recipe for hand rolled marzipan cookies that translates to "cat poop treats."
I shit you not.
er. yeah, sorry.

Ice cores, sunlight, and arctic sea ice for my book THE MAN IN THE CINDER CLOUDS. That was also the greatest volume of research. About 100,000 words read in order to write 10.

I've also researched crop rotation (specifically between soybeans and corn) and ciccadas for one book and snakebites, the history of the coin, and 13th century France for another.

WORD VERIFICATION: bedin. A post-class evening goal for collegiate bar-hoppers looking for a date.

I wrote a story with terrorist bad guys one time, so I was doing internet searches on subjects like "components of a nuclear bomb" and "yield of a dirty bomb" and "how to smuggle something into the U.S." I was expecting the FBI to knock on my door any minute.

Actual conversation from my home:

Boyfriend: "Hey babe. Whatcha doin' over there?"

Me: "Researching electric eels, 18th century batteries, and which plants would create the most poisonous hybrid."

Boyfriend: "... You didn't even make that up, did you?"

Haha... how to cure a raw hide using funneled smoke and the animal's brains. Did you know that an animal has just enough chemical stuff in his brain to cure his entire hide? =P

Anonymous at 9:25. They wouldn't have knocked.

Great question, Nathan. Moved to New York to document the staging of a Mark Twain on Broadway at the Lyceum theater and got run out of the auditorium by the sound/design crew. The set looked amazing & I had my videocamera with a tape of an interview I conducted with a Twain impersonator -- and when I asked the crew if they wanted to see it (I thought they'd be interested but I also thought it'd be cool/good luck to inaugurate the space with the videospirit playback), boy, they literally chased me outta there like a cartoon. I'm talkin' 'Yabba-dabba-doo' time.

The good news was I was met back in the lobby by a woman that ran some 'History of Broadway Theater' archive in an upstairs office and she took me up and showed me around. The office used to be a private apartment & she pulled back a secret panel that opened up to a bird's-eye view of the stage. Then she showed me an old letter she found stashed away that Twain had written to a Broadway producer regarding some point-of-business/minutiae that I can't recollect. Not strange as much as feeling like I walked back in time.

Probably the location of prosthetic limb fitting services in the Bronx. Yes, I'm a stickler for details.

Urban medical waste removal in third world countries. I know more about incinerating, shredding, and burying medical waste that I ever thought possible.

Since I write non-fiction, and I put out a new product every week, I learn strange things every weekend. I am a plethora of useless factoids. Botfly life cycle (and other parasites) is hands down the creepiest research I've ever done - you have to see the videos on YouTube of the botflies exploding out of the skin of animals...even humans. My wiener-dog once found a "semi-dead" mouse in the garage and it subsequently exploded like an alien when he tried to catch it. Yes, it was our friend the bot fly making his debut. Disgusting!

My weirdest is probably Mesopotamian slaves; it had nothing to do with what I was writing, but it was part of one random paragraph, and I spent about half a day on it.

Also, a word to the wise: if you're ever trying to figure out what a child in modern-day Japan might wear, don't just do an image search for "Japanese girl." Especially not if you're in Starbucks at the time.

'Phantom pains' in amputees.

Researching what the Apocalypse would look like; I went to Detroit.

I tend to write suspense, so a lot of my research involves things like weapons, wounds, police investigations, etc. A lot of it feels weird while doing it (I wrote one book about a corporate spy and got to look up a lot about how to break into buildings and get around security), but the one that probably actually stands out as the oddest thing I've looked up was how to kill someone with a weight bench.

Does anyone else do these things and hope the police never decide to look up your search history?

I spent an evening learning about crocodile genitalia. My dragons are based on reptile-to-bird evolution and I figured I should be thorough in my own anatomical notes.

Let's just say my friends have been skeptical that my recent interest in pregnancy and childbirth is just "for my novel"

Nothing nearly as interesting as others. Possibly the most interesting to me was mid-sized feral cats. The strangest might have been Chinese vampires. They're easily distracted and they hop. My characters had a great time with that one.

Dumpsters. I needed to know whether any existed in the 1940s. Then I decided I didn't need to know that. But it was a fun hour. :)

You basically just revealed that Jacob and the kids go through a wormhole ... unless they don't.

And I'm not even going to begin to come close to any admissions on this topic, though it is a fun one!

1) How to "float" a car on a lake, the way it's sometimes done at golf tournaments.

2) The procedure for getting a Brazilian wax job.

Kuru

How to cook and eat a snake. Yum.

I once researched which poisons are slow acting, and the impacts they have.

I'm sorry to bring this up here, but I have been thinking a lot about yesterday's post and it really made me wonder about something that I couldn't work out how to discuss with everyone.

I'm a chicken for posting anonymously because I'm a regular commenter on this blog, (and I've already bought Nathan's book) but I really feel I'll be misunderstood on the subject. I just can't get the wording right. So forgive me in advance for any inadvertent offence caused...

I'm just wondering, if Nathan was still a literary agent would more people have bought his book to stay in his 'good books' so to speak? And would they have already listed more reviews and made it known that they'd purchased his book in the hope that he would look more favorably on any query they sent through? (I'm not suggesting at all you would give advantage to anyone, Nathan, I'm talking about what people do to give themselves any leverage they think they can get, real or perceived) This factor may have contributed to sales figures.

A number of people who used to comment regularly on this blog don't anymore, and I guess I assume that's because Nathan isn't seen as 'useful' to them anymore.

I bet I've already offended people, and if so I apologize. I'm not talking about the majority of people who frequent this blog, I'm just talking about the impact of 'positional power', networking leverage and perceptions. I hope you understand the point I'm trying rather inarticulately to make.

Self promotion is really hard, and I think Nathan handled a tricky subject very well, but it just got me wondering you know..?

I had to research how deep to cut through an artery with a knife. If was for my manuscript...really. It was a whole soldier training thing. :)

I don't do a lot of research because I write fantasy/ sci fi and my high school physics lessons are more than enough "research" on that front.

However, I have spent an entire day looking up the worst things to name your child for my novel.

I got some pretty strange results, and when my friend saw my search history, she took one look and said are you PLANNING to get your future child beaten up in the school yard?

This is SUCH a great topic!

I recently researched ships of various Spanish conquistadors and whether the Spanish had access to potatoes and when. I watched a PBS documentary series because of the research hosted by a wily British man who was so geeked about the topic it was inspiring! All for the sake of backstory...

Nothing so interesting as many of these comments...alas!

But there were the crypts under St. Mark's, electrocution, 19th century air pressure experiments, carbon-monoxide releasing compounds, Victorian underwear, avian fornication, and methods for dissecting pigeons.

Thank God for the Internet. Dunno if I could face my librarian with all of that!

I would say the social influences of the Japanese in world war two and how they went from an imperial war machine to a very passive nation in a span of a generation.

I wanted a character addicted to coffee, even though I don't drink coffee. It's like a nervous tick for them to grab XYZ cup of caffeine.

So I've been exposed to more than two dozen different ways to prepare coffee now. Some of them are not pleasant. Others are surprisingly fantastic. If someone else is there, I ask them what they think, since different tastebuds yield different opinions.

It's always fun to go to a restaurant, and the first thing I ask the waiter is, "Do you have coffee and Kahlua? Someone said it's prepared that way. I've never had it. I need one."

Ghost photos... like Uncle Orb.

My late husband was a military history buff and nature photographer who took thousands of photos of the Gettysburg Battlefield, including some uncanny ones.

For fun, and as a small tribute to him, I put together a little ebook called Haunted Ground: Ghost Photos from the Gettysburg Battlefield... but at first there were a few photos I couldn't place on the battlefield, like the one of Uncle Orb.

I thought Jack shot the photo of Uncle Orb in a boulder-strewn area across from the Irish Monument, but when I drove there, got out and tramped around in the woods, the boulders didn't look the same, so I had to climb over more boulders until I finally found the spot. I drove and walked to the locations in every photo just to make sure I had the right places.

I decided to have a character swallow a wedding ring - then I had to research what happens next. What would her doctor's office say when she called (once they stopped laughing)- and when would the ring, uh, reappear? At what point would she need medical invention if it didn't, and what form would that take? Writing in Flow

There are some great "weird" research topics on this list!

Min was: When was chunky peanut butter "invented?"

Turns out original peanut butter was always chunky because they didn't have the technology to get it totally creamy. So in the end, it was "smooth" peanut butter that was invented!

Monasteries. For a short story. Way more interesting than I thought it would be.

The research not the story.

I like the story too.

anon@10:41-

I honestly don't think there was a large contingent of people who were doing things just to try to impress me so I might look more favorably on their query when the time came. I wondered along with everyone else what would happen when I transitioned this blog from being an agent blog to author blog, but there hasn't been a dropoff in readers and comments. The regular commenters always come and go, that's kind of the life cycle of a blog and has been happening from the beginning.

So I can't imagine that there was this big audience that I lost out on just because I stopped being an agent.

I write erotica with a BDSM twist. I'm not even going to tell you some of the places I've gone and some of the stuff I've seen in my research. :)

The Seattle bus schedule. And when is the best time to harvest rutabagas. (Different WIP.)

I'll never forget the time I was correcting a fictional death by poisoning and laughing at all the wrong details. I even looked it up to show her the facts.

"Are you sure this is for research?!"

If only we hadn't been IMing each other, I could have deadpanned, "You'll never know until it kicks in."

I researched any and all scientific explanations for invisibility. There are quite a few very plausible choices, not that I understood the physics of most of what I read, but it was fun to learn about it.

P.T. Barnum and circus freakshows; what would happen to an unmarried mother in Tennessee in 1915?; weather in 1925 on July 8th in 1925; laws addressing animal hoarding; euphemisms, synonyms, and misogyny. I've learned a lot of interesting stuff along the way.

Ghost photos... like the one of Uncle Orb.

My late husband was a military history buff and nature photographer who took thousands of photos of the Gettysburg battlefield, including some uncanny ones. Just for fun, and as a tribute to him, I created a small ebook of Gettysburg ghost photos.

I did some Civil War research so I could summarize what happened at each location, but ran into a problem when I wasn't sure where he took a few photos... like the one of Uncle Orb. I thought Uncle Orb was across from the Irish monument, but when I went there, the boulders didn't match the rocks in the photo.

I ended up crawling around in the woods until I found the right spot. Then, to be scrupulous, I drove and/or walked to the location in every photo just to be sure I had the right places.

Anonymous @ 10:41. No offense taken. Yes, I've noticed too. But you could look at it the other way around—how we are useful to Nathan... then and now.

Deep back story for my novel, including amongst other things fringe skirmishes in the Quebec region France during the French and Indian war.

French toilets of the late 1800's.

WOW! Some really interesting responses. ;-)

I want to extend a personal invitation to my blogfest: http://writinginwonderland.blogspot.com/2011/07/wonderland-giveaway-blogfest-2011.html

Witness accounts of Encounters with Men in Black. Some of those tales are just bizarre!

Vasospasms and the kind of medicines used in mental institutions. Not for a WIP, actually, for a play-by-post forum rpg. Wish I got paid for that stuff, it's gold. xD

How to make a pipe bomb. Pretty sure big brother is on to me.

Loved reading these responses! The most recent weird thing I've researched... how to dissect a cat, for a short story newly written.

"The Divine Comedy", Pulp Fiction and the Bible for a longish short story and a half completed trunk novel.

For my latest WIP i've been researching British insults and butchering(like turning game into meat).

How to butcher an animal. I didn't find anything. :( Either I wasn't looking hard enough, or there weren't any YouTube videos at the time... (I'm glad...eew.)

Liquid explosives, police procedures for handling suspects who are social services clients, how the world would work if it was flat, which direction a running man would fall if he were shot in the head close range, songs from films about food. to name a few!

Relative weights of a person on the different planets and moons in our solar system, for my sci-fi story.

Elephant genitalia

The history of artificial blood, Sweden in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the Cambodian climate in the Ice Age. Two of those were for the same book!

World Records for longest bout of sneezing and longest bout of hiccuping...

also the oldest piece of chewing gum ever found. (9,000 years!)

Bomb-making, London Underground stations, London's new Olympic Village, hierarchy and procedure in the Metropolitan Police Murder Investigation Teams, the effects on the human body of being electrocuted in the bath tub...

Does it sound like a list of a potential terrorist?

This is a wonderful question!!!!! I'm still working on my first novel, so I don't have that much of weird topics (mythical murderous creatures of the world who are similar in several countries is one) but I'm the unnoficial researcher in my family. Lately I've had to research on duck breeding, victorian house construction and hypnosis.

Pole dancing! I spent an evening watching how-to videos about pole dancing for a short story I was working on. I walked a fine line as far as avoiding sites that would give my computer viruses that night!

Recently I've researched how one feels when on heroin, Rolls-Royce body styles and the interior of London's Marquee Club in 1967.

I don't know if it's the strangest, but recently I've been researching Wuxia stories and literature from China. This stuff goes back over a thousand years. It changes over time but always has martial arts. Crouching Tiger, HIdden Dragon was a wuxia story. Fun stuff and I'm learning about cool weapons!
Cool question and fun reading the comments.

I had to research odd University degrees. Apparently you can get a degree in bowling alley management. Perhaps you'd care to minor in Astrobiology?

I had a character who was bragging on her "precious daughter" and I needed the most ludicrous college degree I could find. The daughter went on to design ball return equipment, by the way.

Does failed research count? I've been trying to find out when percherons were first imported by Japan. Yes, European war horses. Darian, if you've got a suggestion, please share!

I once had to resarch the 'art' and 'benefits' of Chinese foot binding.

For a fiction project, I had to research ways in which people experience carbon monoxide poisoning.

I was actually researching from the designers side for this particular project, and had to find objects made of/covered with human flesh...There were a lot of things I came across that I didn't need to know :) Including finding a company that produces faux flesh for wholesale; like cloth.

I was actually researching from the designers side for this particular project, and had to find objects made of/covered with human flesh...There were a lot of things I came across that I didn't need to know :) Including finding a company that produces faux flesh for wholesale; like cloth.

LOL I've emailed a horticulture society about the plants that bloom in England in the winter; researched the history of the toilet so I'd know if my characters needed chamber pots or could go ahead and flush; and emailed a doctor once to ask how long a dead body would have hair :D

Good times :D

Jesuits hunting meteorites in Antarctica.

Aztec food. Heck, food period. So very many weird foods out there, it's astonishing, tbh. Frog eggs skimmed straight out of the lake, pressed, and eaten. Ever researched what garum is really made of? And how it's made? Salt trade routes? Salt cod trade? Wars were fought over these thnigs, folks. How much, and what type of grain can be grown in what climate? What happens if x piece of technology is missing in a culture? What happens if the culture doesn't have pack animals? So many awesome things to research. One of the most awesome things I found out is that up until refrigeration kicked in, one of the most important considerations on where to place a town was access to salt. It's those little things that ground the stories.

IMO, fantasy writers (including myself) need to do just as much if not more research other genres. Way too many subtle things to miss if they don't, and without that foundation, the worldbuilding can easily come across as shallow. Science fiction writers need to do some of the same, but that's so they can extrapolate into the future.

Jesuits hunting meteorites in the austral summer of Antarctica. Seems the Vatican has had a long standing interest in extra-terrestrial life. Big collection at the Summer Palace.

For anonymous who researched "beaver" my husband as a Boy Scout named his patrol group the Beaver Patrol - couldn't understand why adults chuckled, he was thinking working as hard as a beaver and eager beaver.

I'm writing a memoir - as one of my scenes I had to recall my research of the sixty-four names of the God Mercury to use with the magic square of Mercury to invoke him. I was in the occult during that stage.

To the person who had to self-learn Tarot the current chapter of my Memoir - Tell Me What He Did that I put up in Critique Circle in the general category (to be posted tomorrow) has a lot on Tarot. If you are a member might check. Critique Circle is a great critique site, one of WD 100 best websites for writers.

What a delightful post!

Heather

Forgot to add, regarding the Beaver Patrol, years later at Christmas I found a toy stuffed beaver in a resale shop, bought it for a few dollars and had my kids give it to their dad as a joke gift. He still has it.

The priest called all kids to the front of the church and asked them what they got their father's for Christmas. My oldest raised his hand and I groaned (thinking he was going to mention undergarments that we wrapped up as token gifts.) He proudly said, "A stuffed beaver."

The priest was speechless, finally said, "I'm sure he enjoyed it very much.

LOL

Two quaint mourning practices of the Victorian age. One was the fine art of hair jewelry, made from the hair of your dead loved one. The other was commissioning a photograph of a child after death--all dressed up, sometimes with props, sometimes in her mother's arms. Macabre, and sad.

Either 18th century British ghost towns, the mechanics of how dolphins communicate under water, or coastal hamlets in Denmark.

I researched odorless, colorless, tasteless poisons that are relatively available. Yes, a few exist.

Also, whether or not there are raccoons in Russia, types of sawmills/saws used in the 1900s lumber industry in Northern California, and what outward signs bodies (human and jack rabbit) killed by Co2 would show upon discovery the next morning.

Hair jewelry! It's too bad that died out so long ago . . . it would totally solve a plot problem of mine!

Lollipop sex.

Don't ask.

Is that where Skittles come from?

The strangest thing for me has been the phenomenon of the success of Harry Potter, Twilight, any Amanda Hocking, etc. Can't figure out what has generated the amazing popularity when the writing is only so-so, the stories not original or derivative and the main characters generally pedestrian. Flies in the face of everything I've learned good writing is.

Tertiary nipples.

"Is that where Skittles come from?"

LMAO!!

Thank you, Nathan, for this entertaining subject. I've laughed myself silly over quite a few of these.

I had a baby name book on the dashboard of my car for story names and my mother saw it. That was an interesting conversation. I've researched Skara Brae for a story. Also gamma radiation and what frequencies of light are used to diffuse it, the distance in light years to nearby stars that actually have documented planets orbiting them, the longitude and latitude for a city in Colorado, and subcutaneous stitches.

Wow, these comments were interesting reading.
For me it was researching the actual origins of middle eastern religion (mind blowing) for my novel NOAH'S WIFE. If its kosher to give a website--www.tkthorne.com

Thanks for the great question!

I spent 3 months researching Chicago and railroads for a novel once, then ended up writing only one line about it.

Not exactly strange research.

Hmmm...don't know about strange, but for my current main WIP, I had to do a lot of research about Japan, including high school day-to-day life, marriage requirements for non-residents (well, he is a demon after all LOL), youngest someone can live alone (14 - seriously), education requirements, various locations, health care, foods, house configurations, and emergency services. I also looked into various heart and lung aliments, which medicines are used to treat which symptoms, and their side affects. Probably the most interesting to learn about was Japanese views of organ transplants. They are surprisingly against - due to their views on souls and suspicions doctors would declare someone dead just to get the parts. They are rare, though the view is changing some, and almost unheard of for kids.

Once, I researched at what temperature a man's skin might rupture with blisters. AIDS terrorism. Specialized Prostitution. How to cook a human being.

I've had to do research on Dissociative Identity Disorder. (Previously called Multiple Personality Disorder.) It is the most amazing example of how the human mind can work. One part takes the abuse and lets the rest of the mind develop different personalities so they don't have to feel the abuse. Incredibly true stories, one of which is my son. (His homework used to get ripped up and stolen all the time. It was only after much therapy, that he has realized that the "angry" part in him, the one who experienced horrific child abuse, didn't want "the rest of him" to do well. "He" was jealous!

Recently researched the effects of atomic explosions...on the environment and on people. I was amazed to find that there were photographers paid to stand in the wave of nuclear blasts to photograph test explosions. Many have since died of cancer. And we think writing is tough some days!

What a great question! My answer: Antlantic hurricane names,origins of hurricanes off the coast of Africa, their path and time it typically takes before making U.S. landfall. (Since I live in FL I knew something about surviving one already). Also gender non-specific names for characters.

The weirdest successful research I did was on my first book that's published. It was on how to do a rape kit which led me on the path to how to do a full pap. I'm a dude, so watching videos and that kind of stuff was interesting but getting the feelings of the dr. and the patient/ victim down were hard to research. I've had cops and victims read it and wonder how I got it so well. Some wonder where I hide my feminine side to know how a girl feels about anything.

The unsuccessful research in progress for a specific disease that a victim had in Season 13 Episode Two of Law and Order. This was after I had gotten net accountability so I had to explain to my wife and my closest friends and pastor why I was searching Law and Order so much. Apparently, you can't get that episode anywhere. I even went to NBC in NYC to see if I could buy it from the gift store. Nope. Can't buy it off of Blockbuster, Best Buy or anything. I even searched Craigs List around the country. Then I googled the symptoms... still no luck. I have IMBD set to email me when that epidsode will be on TV. Oh, I even emailed digital piraters to see if they could find it... I didn't want to break the law... but if I had been arrested for it I would have wrote that down instead because surely I would use that in a story. If anybody has that episode, let me know :-)

http://www.5pocketphilosopher.wordpress.com

I write historical fiction - Civil War era. I had to research how they did limb amputations in a field hospital after a battle...pretty gross.

would you have deleted my post and not said anything to me?

Define 'strange'. =)
I've researched things from how fast red blood cells recuperate, to what happens to a person's body once they've passed away, to what scares people most, etc. I can't say that anything I've ever researched is strange. It IS strange, however, that I actually researched certain topics. Anybody who didn't know I'm a writer would call the police if they found my books plastered with notes about death and cults and stuff.

Loni Longshore--

They were exported to Japan in 1880s according to: http://www.percheron.com.au/midac/reception.pl?UEPage=1&Page=UE1&Source=&Code=iINozh47&returnURL=&Template=percheron&st=&Ref=&exc=&wide=600&tw=600

My strangest research topic? Probably something related to death though the one I am currently thinking of is "Are people still aware of what's going on for a few minutes after they have been decapitated?" The answer is inconclusive. But I found it interesting to learn that of a science experiment that was done at a beheading to find out.

Thank you, Robin!

How to start (and drive) a 1926 Austin 7 automobile. Turns out it's much more complicated than starting a modern automobile.

I had to research a seal called Nelson. He was blind in one eye and a hit with the fishermen.

Nothing gruesome.
Just discovered that moles (burrowing mammals) do not exist in Egypt.

Did some research on ancient-Egyptian mathematics. I have a hard enough time with mathematics of any kind. Ancient-Egyptian fractions are really mind-blowing. Luckily, my protagonist isn't good at math either!

The dimensions and layout of a laundry room in a early 20th century TB sanatorium.

Not necessarily strange, but difficult and time consuming: While writing book two of my Second Advent trilogy, I went down the rabbit hole after a rumored document that the Catholic Church had secreted away over 1700 years ago. I didn't find it, exactly, but I did find enough allusions to the parchment to put it in the book. Hey, it's fiction...;o)

Haha I no longer feel so weird. Currently I'm researching a meeting in a real estate boardroom - the top executive officers. I also didn't know how someone could own a company in the U.S. before with all these anti-trust laws.

Strangest thing I've researched? Well, I had to find out what would happen if a person injected vodka into their veins, and what the temperature of a morgue is.

Filicide, suicide, and gangrene. Depressingly large amount of information available on the net about suicide and filicide but the research was a powerful tool to better understand my character, adding great emotional and psychological depths.

Some of these are hilarious! I love the fact that a large number of them are about, or are at least related to, murder, death or murderers.

I found myself doing a whole lot of research the other day - in order to write a song.

I don't even know any more.

Anyway, I spent about twenty minutes reading through a bunch of pages on 'Tardis Files', regarding Gwen Cooper. Just - don't even ask... Librarian was giving me odd looks by the end too.

I've had a few other ones, but none of them are hugely interesting as I mostly get my research from guessing / other books / not writing anything that needs research.

Although, watching films totally counts. When I was writing Legacy, I think I watched 'Lord of the Dance' four times. The thing took me a month. That's once a week! :/

Golly, these are hilarious! I did some in depth research on arsenic once because of Faulkner's _A Rose for Emily_--I was writing a critical essay and trying to determine when she killed the guy and what exactly arsenic *does* to the body. Apparently there is arsenic everywhere, and that is why you shouldn't let your infant eat dirt.

What a fun topic!

Aside from having to research the definition of a virus and what exactly biopharmaceutical science is, at this point the weirdest thing was vacuum chambers. Not the kind for left-overs, but the kind NASA would use... (and my brain still hurts from trying to understand it all) :)

We did this one on Absolute Write and I think I won strangest... self-administered ECT, complete with medication you would use for anesthesia that would have amnestic properties with an appropriate half-life AND be available as a street life. I even found a vintage machine on eBay that could run off 9V batteries.

Great question!

When I was a health reporter at the Houston Chronicle, I wrote a few stories about a mystery disease called Morgellons: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5461761.html
I became so fascinated/horrified by it that I started itching all the time, thinking I was experiencing the symptoms!

My vote for Comment! Of! The! Week!:

Joe Iriarte said...
Is that where Skittles come from?

he he he

Unicorns, fairies, fairy rings, elves, Robert Burns, Scotland, Ireland, folklore, Gypsies, horses, plants of various altitudes in the American Southwest, midwestern forest flora, gnomes, stone circles...

I've had to do more research for my fantasy writing than I ever had to do otherwise.

Stayed up late one night, researching traumatic brain injuries, burn treatments, and Michigan pickle farms.

*grin*

Thanks, Heidi. :)

Medical schools, their applications and curriculum circa 1890. This led to a lot of autopsy info.

Another search required finding a mushroom soup recipe that used Death Cap mushrooms and what the first and final side effects would be.

Serial Killers, Drag Queens and Priapism... please don't look up the last one - you'll never be the same!

How to clean a slop jar.

http://carol-ervin.blogspot.com/2011/02/cleaning-slop-jar-in-1883.html

Hmm...It would have to be interesting incidents about chewing gum. In my research travels I came across a forensic dentist who was involved in a murder case in which a piece of bubble gum was found at the scene of the crime. The suspect in the case claimed to have never been at the scene but the dentist was able to positively identify that gum as having been chewed by the suspect. This, along with other evidence, helped bring about a "guilty" verdict.

The Long War (a Serbian Rebellion) that started in 1593. May I also state that my book is neither placed in this time zone or this country... Luckily, my history classes came in handy for World War I ;)

I remember that someone from my authors-list on Twitter once tweeted: "If I should die before I wake, I hope God clears my browser history." (I apologize, it's been ages ago, and I honestly can't remember who exactly it was). Amen to that.

The cooling rate of a body underwater... no, apparently about half the people on this list have researched that, so I suppose it's not that odd after all. ;) I'll have to go with what people used instead of soap, before soap existed (the joys of a bronze age setting.)

Strangely enough, how to butcher a pig (and I'm a vegetarian).
What I love most about novel research is that it is, in a way, transcendent, taking me out of who I am and putting me into the book that I am imagining. One of the best parts of the "job".

I like that way of looking at it, Lisa Ahn. :)

I do think Wonderbar has a lot of Bransford flair to it; a lot of times, the characters would say something, or do something, and I'd laugh to myself and think Isn't that just like Nathan? We often write what we feel into our books because that is the beauty of the craft of writing; it is a living art, words transferring thoughts and feelings from one human heart to the next.

In my 3 WIP's, my life filters through into all of them. Like you, once they go through the lens of Sci-Fi, UF, etc it is barely distinguishable, but it is there for certain. Great blog, sir!

I can definitely relate to that guest post. I started the novel I'm currently querying a couple months before I graduated from college. Naturally, I'd never experienced the fantastical/creepy plot twists I was writing about, but my protagonist was a girl who knew exactly what she loved and wanted to do for the rest of her life - but she wasn't sure if she COULD do those things. Those kinds of worries were weighing heavily on my mind at the time. They still do sometimes.

Last night I was talking to a woman who had this strange quirk when she was speaking and all I could think about was how I would make one of my characters do that too.
Also, my protag is a female newspaper crime reporter like I used to be -- but she's way cooler than I ever was.

I'm not going to admit to any specifics in this kind of format, but I will say that my entire life has heavily influenced everything I write. Obviously.

Are you sure you've never made a corndog trade?

Real life is the breath of writing. I've always been an observer and when I moved overseas I found so much that was new and different; so much to discover and understand. Learning a second language has forced me to listen more, and in doing so I've witnessed countless situations that have touched my heart, made me laugh or cry and taught me that Shakespeare was right when he wrote "all the world's a stage"...and I might add "great material for a writer".

I think that as writers, what we write is influenced by our daily experiences and our personal viewpoints, whether we realize it or not. Even for people who write with the end goal of realism, it's not what actually is real that ends up on the pages, it's the writer's perception of reality. The trick is, then, as we edit, to identify what we have subconsciously included in our draft, and to pinpoint which things help the story and which things don't.

You write what you know. If you want to write something you haven't learned yet, you better get crackin'! Homework is very important if you want to make it in this business.

I am but the sum of my experiences, which all coalesce into the characters and stories I write.

WORD VERIFICATION: Herth. An object in the possession of a female, to someone with a lisp.

I'm a people watcher. I can be in a crowd anywhere and come up with five interesting characters.

Always keep a notebook handy.

I believe that while life inherently sneaks into my writing, I don't think that writers should mirror their lives exactly. What's the fun in that, anyway? I know the whole saying, "Write what you know" but if all you know is what you experience, that's where imagination comes in, no?

So I think real life should healthily inspire writing, but I don't think it should command it. I've seen a lot of young writers try to mirror their own lives in their writing, sort of like self-insertion fics. And.... I don't know... they make me slightly uncomfortable. Perhaps I'm just biased?

I did not enjoy my "school" yrs. From 1st grade through 12th I went to 5 different schools. Never becoming too attached to anyone.

In my current YA ms I've created those school yrs as I would have preferred them to be.

Also my protagonist starts out timid and shy and I am nothing near that so it's hard not to let my strong personality seep through. But by then end, with everything she goes through, I'll be able to flow right through.

Any good story in my opinion is good only if it does incorporate the author's emotions. SciFi is not my favorite genre, but in the hands of an Orson Scott Card I'm spellbound--precisely because of the emotional undercurrents. Certainly in memoir "real life" and its attendant emotions are paramount. Memoir is the only thing that at age 71 I now write. I connect with my readers on that emotional level that's so important even in, as you say, children's literature. From the comments here, it seems that you've succeeded in writing a story that's filled with human feelings. Wonderbar is on my TBR list!!
Ann Best, Author of In the Mirror, A Memoir

Well, for me it's not so much anything tangible that inspires my writing. I'm fairly young by just about anyone's standards and so lacking in experience have to rely purely on research and imagination for most of what I write about. But the emotions and thought processes the characters run through are inspired by my own, if that makes any sense. :)

I may not have the experiences that my characters have (never have or would base jump off the Eiffel tower, for example) but I try to think of times when I experience emotions that are similar, and try to write those with as much authenticity, and emotion, as I can. The weird thing is, I find my writing tells me things that I need to know about my own life, like a theme of being unhappy in a job, or trying to choose between creativity and stability. :)

Where I am physically has a lot to do with the way I feel at any given point. I can be very sentimental about certain places I've been, and when I'm writing, I imagine my characters in those places, and watch the story unfold in my head.

I just posted about this today. I live a boring life, but you can put in tidbits from your life and your ancestor's lives into your stories. Use quirks, physical traits, unusual names and mannerisms to make your stories interesting.

Ugh. I put in a typo and had to delete.
Here it is again:


I don't think anyone can complete dissolve the connections between herself/himself and the writing. It may be very filtered or very obvious, but it's going to be there.
I once heard Eoin Colfer touch on this topic for a bit at the Edinburgh Book Festival a few years ago. He eagerly admitted that he puts all kinds of people in as characters in his books. He named off two goblins who were actually his brothers, and, as most of us had just seen and heard author Ian Rankin interview the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, Colfer declared he planned to work those two into his next book.
This is probably the most dramatic example I can think of, but authors cannot help but put something of themselves, their lives, and their opinions into their works. JRR Tolkien was a devout Catholic. Can we see it in LOTR? Oh, indeed. Whole books have been written about the Christian themes in his book. Bram Stoker was intrigued by technology -- and Dracula is filled with cutting edge stuff of the day (typewriters, stenography, wax recording cylinders). Shannon Hale is a Mormon who's big on marriage and babies. Guess what? Her books hit home on girls getting married and having babies time after time. Robert L. Stevenson admittedly based Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde on the infamous Deacon Brodie and the dual nature and image of the city in which he was born.
Obvious or obscure, ties to the author's life are going to be there. My guess is that any author who thinks s/he's not doing this is merely not doing it consciously.

Real life for example, is me sitting here curled on a comfy hospital chair, having a chemotherapy infusion. Conversation and life stories eddy around me, and I write, poetry and prose.
Lately though, I have begun to wonder if I will ever be able to write fiction. My writing has become defined by my autobiographical voice... and the brevity of moments and meetings.
Do you think it is possible to start writing fiction after years of writing memoirs???

I keep track of odd scenes that I see out and about, then try and find a way to use them where they can be fit into a story.

It's impossible not to think there's a story behind a long-haired Hell's angel with a tiny little girl in a pink dress and furry animal backpack on the back of his bike, wearing his helmet.

Likewise, not using the scene I saw at DisneyWorld with a group of Catholic nuns riding rides with a group of Buddhist monks would be practically criminal.

I agree that it's important to be out in the world, engaging with all kinds of people, refusing to make safe and lazy assumptions.

I'm an introvert, but I do a lot of volunteering, and try to take an active sympathetic interest in everything and everyone around me.

I also have children, and a lot of very long term relationships (friends for 30 years, marriage). I think living through such relationships, making them work well for so long, seeing how those well-known people go through their own lives, is a vital source of insight. You learn so much that you can't infer if you just see them casually, or if you lose track of them after a couple of years. I think that may be why a lot of the greatest novels were written by people over 40.

The other day, my card got declined in Panera. Someone had jacked my account, so the bank shut it down. After praying to die for five minutes, I got my food and sat down to write a scene in which a woman gets declined at a restaurant. The red cheek shame was fresh, and it rolled out onto the page. Thanks, guy who stole my card number!

The disclaimer I make for my fiction goes like this - "Everything I am writing about is absolutely true. I just can't promise you that any of it ever happened."

So the events might not always be real life inspired but they are real to the writer inspired. Even if you think your 'real' life doesn't show up in your writing, you're probably fooling yourself. You are all there, baby, naked in
a thousand different ways.

I was all set to write about my real life adventures on a great expedition on an ocean liner to a fabulous lost city and our battles with sea monsters and Fascist U-boats and airships and aliens along the way. But then that J. T. Shea guy stole my life!

At least we don't have to sharpen our quills anymore. Great photo again, Nathan.

The post by Daniel José Older was very engaging, since he comes at the process of writing with a passion for life itself. (and he shows it by the extra things he does in his off time)

My writing comes from my observations which usually twig my brain into extrapolating possibilities. I posted on my blog a while back about observing what's going on around you.

http://dghudson-rainwriting.blogspot.com/2010/11/curiosity-as-research-or-just-plain.html

Two of my novel WIPs were started based on what I had seen or read about. I get short story ideas based on things that happen to me, or what I've read about in the news that evokes a strong feeling.

Maybe writers channel life through our veins better, since we're attuned to the vibrations.

I think writers use their real life experiences as a resource in their writing. I know I sure do. We've all heard the saying: Truth is stranger than fiction. And often it is.

Real life seeps into every part of my writing - plots, settings, and especially characters. I don't "copy" people from real life into my books, but I love pulling personality traits from people I know and inserting them into my characters.

I turned into a ladybug once, but I got better.

I agree that we write from real life but more so from our own world view. We all have one: life is a bitch, life is a joy, life is one long laugh, life is awesome, life is a fast paced ride, life is painful.
That personal world view has to show up in your characters because you're creating them, thereby giving them (subconsciously)little bits of your personality...even if you are creating them to be vastly different, or evil. : )

I work in mental health and deal a lot with the emotions of others, but I can't deny that those ups and downs, tragedies, feelings of despair and hopelessness as well as victories, breakthroughs, and moments of growth don't affect me. The best and worst part of being me is my sensitivity to others. I hope that this characteristic helps me be a better writer. Not only in being able to flesh out characters but also inserting the universal truths that show up in books and speak to us. Yes, I know that truth. Yes, I know that feeling. Yes, I've been there. Yes, that is me--the lonely, the forgotten, the lost, the ashamed, the hurt, the hopeful, the loving, the strong, the brave, the human.

Real life inspires me to escape into make-believe. Hehe.

And, more on topic, if I couldn't draw from my own experience, I'd have a hard time breathing life into characters at all. They might seem like sociopaths--acting out the superficial affects of emotion rather than acting as a result of feeling real emotion.

I'm not sure about other writers; sure looks like this bunch agrees with me, though, when I say that reality is the big ocean where my inspiration is spawned. Real-life desires, experience, frustrations (you name it), fertilized by imagination and wishful thinking, and brought to life by skill and craft (and unique voice).

I put in so much stuff from real life that the finished work could serve partly as a journal.

Sometimes when I'm stuck, I'll write the song currently playing wherever I am, into the story. It keeps the pen moving!

The emotional side really transfers into my stories. If I am feeling overwhelmed I find a character to feel over whelmed by different kinds of things. If I feel sad I create a sadness in my character. I can also admit that some of the things I have experienced in my life I have suggested my characters experience them as well in either a lighter or darker way.

Like your friend, I also work in healthcare. There is a lot I see and do that can be really emotional but showing emotion at that time isn't appropriate. For example, the phrase 'pull the plug' is something everyone has heard, but it's my job to be the one to actually, *pull* the plug. (actually, we remove the endotracheal tube, or disconnect the ventilator). Often family is gathered around the bed as I go into the room. Talk about feeling like the Grim Reaper. I'm always wondering what they are thinking and feeling, and try to capture some of that emotion and infuse my characters with it.

I hear all the time that we should draw from our own experiences to write. I write Fantasy. When I write I try to bring accross to my readers the goodness in men's hearts, that basic spark we all possess that gives us the ability to change the world, to defy evil, to wonder what we could be if we only tried. Does that make sense? I hope so, would hate to just be rambling.

Some of my real-life feelings and frustrations come through in my writing in my characters, but as you said, by that time there are so many filters and layers that it is (I hope) not so transparent. It doesn't matter if my novel is set 1000 years in the future on a different continent, some human emotions and experiences are universal, and being able to convey those emotions makes the story richer and more believable. My frustrations with the graduate school system and some past experiences with rejection showed up in my main character in my last manuscript, for example, even though otherwise we are not very similar.

For my YA novel When I Am Singing to You I drew on my experience of working in the cornfields of Iowa for 5-6 years to make money for school expenses.

I know what it's like to travel to a field at dawn in a cattle truck with no windows, then go up and down the stifling rows of corn, sizzling with tangy chemicals, to detassel it. Covered in sweat, eaten up by bugs, bored to death. The edges of the corn leaves slapping my bare legs and arms and sometimes slashing my eyeballs.

I also know what it's like to husk baby corn and slice deep into the ball of my thumb the first hour I arrive at work, outside a food processing plant that smells like (no good way to put this, sorry) puke. And I know what it's like to be sprayed by a crop dusting plane--twice--and have a headache so bad it feels like someone took an axe to my skull. Etc.

This experience cried out for me to use it in a novel. And having such a distinct memory of these setting details helped motivate me to write such a story in the first place. I don't believe there are many stories that depict this grueling work or the people who do it (now mostly Mexican Americans, even in Iowa; when I did it was mostly kids from small towns or working class neighborhoods like my own). And yet there are many people who live this story.

What you see and absorb in 'real life' becomes part of your writer's tool box. In most cases the experiences whirl thorough the vortex of my imagination and come out looking quite different.

The language, walk, food, smell, glare of a correctional facility and the stories within its wall inspire me and allow me to play both sides of the fence (or wall).

We all write from our own experiences. We write about people we know, either by design or accident. We include characteristics we admit or hate, but we base those upon having seen them close up. We write about emotions, but only as we feel them...or as we perceive them in others. There are a million ways to cry, but we include those we have seen in real life. We can mentally create bodies, but we populate them with our own reality.

Interesting questions and comments.

For me, since I primarily write non-fiction and memoir, my work is definitely a reflection of my experiences. But even in my small fiction pieces, I can see who I am behind the words.

Actually, that's one thing about eventually being published that sort of scares me. It's so vulnerable! Anyone could take a magnifying glass to what I write and know so much about me. I don't know if other authors feel this way - that their writing exposes who they are - but it's something that I'm nervous about...

Won't stop me from publishing, but especially when I think about writing my memoir - I wonder how people handle being so vulnerable to unknown readers. Just something I'm thinking about....

Oh, and that was a really good article by Daniel Jose Older.

My life is horrifically dull, so I write things I would never do, and things I would never say. Living vicariously through my characters being mean, obnoxious, silly, ridiculous. It makes me feel good to know even if I can't do it, I can think it!

The answer I abuse most often when asked 'why do you write?' is 'writing is cheaper than therapy'.
My characters feel what I feel, they know what I know, they experience what I have. That's why I've always thought of writing as laying your soul bare for the world to read.

Anyway, I love BP's comment and agree with it 100%.

Writing what you feel during your life's experiences may be a better way of explaining "write what you know." Real life is what my trilogy is based on...my mother's real life. She grew up in the 30s and danced in a chorus line til she met my father and fell in love. My story is somewhat different in plot but the feelings she had as an orphan, a foster child and then traveling and finally meeting her man, is all incorporated in the story.

In most of my books, I us my memories of the mischievous child I was, and the mischievous adult I have become, but I also add my experiences with animals and turn them into fictitious children's books. Though one of my books was total fantasy.

My online comic strip http://chalkandcheesecomics.blogspot.com/ is pretty much based on conversations with my kids (eg who would win in a fight between a Yeti and giant sloth?), and situations we find ourselves in (anyone for ice cream?).I'm forever jotting down snippets of conversation which help add an authentic and unique voice to my characters, and certainly give me a wealth of ideas to run with. Drop by and judge for yourself...

Since I'm a thriller/paranormal writer, what gets my juices flowing are my nightmares! And I have some doozies. I've had them since I was a kid, which used to bother me a lot until I decided to share them with the world. Therefore, I see my writing as a kind of therapy, if you will. :) What a great way to get those buggers out of your system!

I believe characters emotions definitely play a role in real life experiences even if the story is far from anything you have ever experienced. Certainly personalities come from yourself, family members, friends, people you know, or have had experiences with. Whatever the case, we write basically what we know and add a certain twist to the tale. Even the way the rain falls in the South compared to the Northwest, or the the difference in the color of the sky in your area or the sunsets. We write what we feel.

My blog is my real life, so it totally inspires that. My romance novels are somewhat inspired by own emotions and fantasies, but not so much my real life.

One of the speakers at last year's RWA conference said that YA writers write not just for the young readers of today, for the teen they were. Maybe it's just a case of finding my voice, but I'm finding it a lot easier to dig into the emotions in my YA WIP than it ever was in my adult historical. Plus my home town is proving to be a rich background that's so easy to tap!

When I first started writing chick lit, I tried writing stories about young women who went out to bars and parties on a regular basis. But it was hard because my twenties were defined by work; even on the rare occasions when I did go to bars or parties I found myself thinking about all the work I had to do. So the stories I write now are inspired by my work experiences, because I think that real women in their twenties and thirties don't get to hang out with their friends as much as they spend time with their work colleagues.

I write science fiction and fantasy and I know real life has a lot to do with my writing. Without my personal experiences and emotions I couldn't write what I do. Spec Fic isn't just about strange places and peoples (though it is that). It is about the people in these worlds and how they experience the life around them. In the end, all literature is about the human experience. People connect to my characters because they understand their emotions and reactions (whether they always like the choices my characters make or not is a different story altogether).

I especially love taking news stories and weaving science fiction and fantasy stories that are based on them.

Well, since I do write memoir and personal essays, my life very much infiltrates my writing. My most recent essay is about trying to explain death to my three-year-old. I know, though, that if I wrote fiction, my life would influence my writing as well because all the ideas I have for fiction stories stem from events in my life.

My life is my writing.

If an unhappy childhood is a writer's gold mine, then my absurdly blissful adult life is my diamond mine.

I am finding more and more that I am letting what I am going through slip into my writing. But i never recreate things exactly; I take layers from people I know, and paste them onto characters, sometimes getting aspects for three or four characters off the one person. I also weave in elements of my life, emotions and small anecdotes, lines of dialogue etc. But I deliberately just use this as a starting block, firstly as real life people and events are so impossible to know completely, and I need to know thoroughly what's happening when I am writing, and secondly so in years time I do not have any embarrassing incidents if i ever run into someone who has identified themselves in my novel.

My life experiences have inspired me to write, dictating the genre of my work. Losing my first son at the ripe age of 22, emotionally distraught, drove me to write my first book, BELIEVE- a story about the loss of a child… a heart’s healing journey… and the bond of a Mother’s love. My upcoming memoir/narrative nonfiction (title TBA)centers on my second son’s traumatic brain injury, set against the backdrop of his insurmountable challenges, inspired by a mother’s unwavering faith, impacted by the intercession of heavenly beings, yet gripped by an unexpected twist of fate. Guess you would say, "Real life has inspired my writing."

Art doesn't just imitate life, it is often life embodied, personified. We cannot create life (art) from a vacuum. Its genesis is in our souls, our imagination, our experiences. The art and craft of telling the stories of life (a fictional life, or a memoir)that resonate with others is directly correlative with the distillation of talent, experience, imagination, craft, timing, and soul we possess. If we do not experience life--engage in it--we rely too heavily, then, on imagination. Although imagination is the germination of story, experience is the backbone.

In the creation of my children's books, An Adventure with Joshua and Hoppy Frog was born. I was inspired by the birth of my grandson. Joshua's delivery was negligent and caused life-threatening disabilities. At that time, we were told that Joshua wouldn't be a normal little boy. So, as new grandmother I wrote my book as if Joshua was discovering life and adventures that most little boys would do. Along the way he met Hoppy the Frog his best friend. Together they learn about self-worth. The inspiration has also created An Adventure with Joshua and Rocky the Otter and they learn courage. Write from your heart.

I think it goes the other way, too. The other night I wrote a scene from the antagonist's POV. It's a scene near the end of the book where everything is unraveling for him, and he was wildly angry. About this time, my 4yo daughter woke up and asked for something. It was all I could do, to stay calm and help her (even though I'm not an angry person). Does anyone else have this happen? The emotions of your story spill over into real life?

Real life events guide some of the drama in the lives of my characters.

I wish I had known that writing the darn thing was the easy part.

Ditto, Nathan. DITTO

I wish I had known that other writers were in fact not lying. It can take 7, 10, 15, 20 years to see your book on a shelf. I will also steal your end product/outcome wish (it's very profound and will make me sound much more self actualized when I use it.)

That sharing is as critical as creating.

I wish I had known that some people were telling the truth when they said sometimes you just need to quit.

Don't worry. You'll figure it out. And when you do, you'll realize it was all in you, from the beginning. All you needed were the elements on some post its, to give your subconscious something to work with.

I can only be my own audience for so long.

What I should have told myself and what I still tell myself...

Work hard.

The best way to learn isn't to read all those books on how to write. It's only in doing that you understand.

And for god's sake, stop trying to please teachers by doing everything proper and literary and write something straight across to a friend.

That skill comes through practice. You aren't born a good writer, you're driven to become one. But it will not happen unless you work your tail off (and read enough top quality books to build yourself a house).

I wish I had known that I didn't have to be perfect the first time...that there's lots of opportunity for do-overs. That, in fact, the do-overs (editing) is the part where the story really blossoms.

I also wish that I knew that I could "borrow" from other writers better than me. Not plagiarize...borrow...take their writing and turn it to fit mine. Doing that has been unbelievably fun for me.

Er, I wish I'd known this one rule: However long you think a project will take, add 12 months.

I wish I would have known that every story I write ends up coming true. I would've written about Amish lovers instead of zombies. Now I can't even make it to my car. And the cable is out. Again.

I wish I would have taken the time to learn more about publishing.

I wrote my first novel trying on purpose to make it long because I loved long books. I never stopped to think that all those famous writers wrote short(er) books first.

I wish I'd known that the word 'actually' is unnecessary in most sentences!

The fact there was an established Craft for fiction writing. I'd been Honors English in high school and a technical writer for years. What is a plot structure?

I'm having to do major re-writes on 4 novels in a series because there's no real structure.

I am offering a no-cost upgrade to any latest and greatest electronic editions, though.

I wish I had known to find a writing partner and a critique group.

Not that I needed to hear it at the time, but I would go back and say

"Don't you dare give up."

There were times I wanted to. I never did, thankfully. I was passionate enough about writing that I withstood the scrutiny and doubt.

I probably also would tell myself

"Don't write that epic fantasy right now. You're not ready."

That is still true. The epic fantasy I began at age 14 is still too large a project. Someday, I'll go back to it. And when I do, it will be glorious.

I wish I'd understood earlier about the sheer amount of writing that every single writer, does no matter what their skill level-- all the discarded drafts, half-finished novels, etc. It always felt like I was the only one producing 90% crap and 10% stuff I was satisfied with, and everyone else just had magic flowing from their fingertips. It wasn't until I read posts authors made of all the drafts and ephemera they wrote and abandoned before getting published that I realized I was not, in fact, the only person who stalled out on novels at 20K words, or short stories that didn't work.

If I could turn back time (if I could find a way...) I would tell my younger self to not think about whether a piece is "good" or not until they are finished, and not a moment before.


-Salom

Until "it was," that is. It's early.

-Salom

I wish I had known that all those details that I find so fascinating aren't necessarily fascinating for readers.

Stop wasting time.

I wish I had known that PT Barnum and H.L Menchen were right. “You Will Never Go Broke Underestimating the Intelligence or the taste of the American Public”.

I wish I'd known that I wasn't as good a writer in high school as all my teachers said I was.

Or rather, I wish I'd known that being good for a HS student didn't mean I was good enough to send my stories to pro markets. Would've saved myself the years of self-doubt all those rejections cost me.

I wish I'd know that everybody writes alone, but nobody becomes a writing success that way. Not just the critique aspect, but the support. It's too tough a business to lone wolf.

I wish I had known that "patience" was more than just another word in the dictionary.

Nathan, you posted a link to a NYTimes profile on the iconic Amanda Hocking. Mentioned within the article is what you might call the beginning of Hocking's path to superstardom.

"She began treating writing like any other job."

This isn't just something I wish I could've told myself as a starting writer; I wish I could've told myself this as a younger man.

The great American distance runner Steve Prefontaine was fond of saying "Talent is a myth. There's no such thing as talent. If want to win at something, you find the best teacher and you practice as much as it takes to get good at it. And then you practice even more to become the best."

Like so many, I grew up believing that skill in sports, skill in academics...skill in writing...was like the powers in X-Men; some people simply had the mutation or the genetics to do the amazing. The rest of us muggles...didn't.

It's ironic this unfortunate conceit is so rampant in America; a nation built on the concept of self-determination and self-reliance.

I sometimes read about Hocking, or I check out weblit authors like Jim Zoetewey or J. A. Konrath and I wistfully wonder what might I have been if I wasn't sitting on my ass waiting for writing ability to "happen" to me.

The only thing that has lessened by bitter regret in my older years is that as long as I'm breathing...it's never too late to start.

-Bill

Honestly... I wish I had observed more and typed less in writer forums. I'm all for interaction, but I was on AgentQuery for a while and I got myself into real trouble being snarky-turned-nasty. Trying to look smart and funny always makes me look dumb and desperate. A lesson I was shamed into learning.

Also, I wish I had believed from the get-go that editing is a LAST STEP. It would have saved me from deleting alot of perfect, irrelevant paragraphs.

I wish I'd known not to force my characters into situations but to let their story unfold as it should.

I wished I hadn't read so many writing books and just read fiction books.

I wish I had either figured out how I needed to write (versus how everyone told me "real authors" write, oh yes, I ran into those kind of people early in my taking writing seriously days) faster than I did (10 years being a long time) or that I already knew how I needed to write, thus being able to focus on the story rather than stumbling around on trying to finish the story.

On the other hand, if I'd done anything differently, I'd be a different kind of writer today, and I'm not sure that'd be a good thing other than the fact that my epic fantasy probably would have had a better chance at getting published 10 years ago than it does today. lol

Great Prefontaine quote, Bill.

I wish I had started sooner. I'd always written, but never considered it something to DO, just something that had to be done. I think about how much I could have accomplished if I'd realized at a younger age how much I truly enjoy writing.

But, I'm thankful to have found my appreciation for writing, and will "keep moving forward," as Disney said.

Thanks Nathan.

Er... I meant, I wish I had known that copy-editing comes after structural-editing. :D

I'm kinda pleased with the fact that I knew absolutely nothing when I started writing. No right or wrong, nothing got in the way, nothing to second guess. And I still approach it that way but with more dicipline. And I try to apply just the basic rules, in a mostly instinctive manner.
When I look back on something I wrote 20, 30 years ago and see, that wasn't half bad, I like that.

I wish I had known that I'd be writing novels at 45 years old, then. I would have hit the writing and the buisness, harder and faster. I would have made it my life then, and maybe I'd have gotten somewhere by now.
Once a fool always a fool.

I wish I had known how much I love to write twenty-five years ago. I'd be so much better (and farther along) by now.

"Once a fool always a fool."

As long as you draw breath, it's never to late.

I wish I had known that it would take a long time to see the book in print. That writing it would be the easy part and to really pay attention in those marketing classes you took because that is what you would be doing after you got the book into print. Also to make as many friends in the business as possible and buy a lucky rabbits foot for luck.

I would tell myself a) the fix to the story world that made it far less derivative and b) wait to revise until you've finished the first draft.

Maybe then it wouldn't have been 8 years before the first draft finally got completed.

"Finish what you start!" is what I would tell my young self, as my muse is quite easily distracted, and inspiration not always readily available.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd have wanted to know anything then that I didn't learn at a later point. Going into all of this as a naive dreamer benefited me, I think, because it allowed me to make mistakes and learn and grow.

If I had known about the difficulty, the constant struggles and trials that accompany writing a publishable work, it could have made me much more self-conscious, possibly paralyzing me with premature doubts and fears. The reality of writing professionally is a lot scarier and a lot harder than first imagined, after all! Easing into it, slowly replacing myths about the industry with fact, was for me the best way to go.

I wish I hadn't shown my first draft to anyone.

And I'm glad I didn't know how long it would take to get to the finished product.

I wish I could tell my younger writing self,

"Hon, this novel isn't as good as you think it is. This first draft you've got here? That's the rough chunk of marble you just carved out of a cliffside. Now, you need to start coaxing a beautiful statue out of it. This is a craft, babydoll. It takes time, patience, and hard work. Now go on. You can do this." :)

I wish I'd known that some of these goddamn online romance reviewers would be so snarky, and able to get away with so many questionable things no one else seems able to get away with.

Sometimes dreams come true V.....E.....R.....Y..........S.....L.....O.....W.....L.....Y

Hindsight is always good to evaluate every now and then.

Like Rod Stewart sings (paraphrased):I wish I had known then what I know now. I also wish I had found a mentor who wanted to coach me for free. I could have used that.

I thought the writing would go faster, but I found out a lot of our interior selves goes into what we create. For me that means, thinking about the storyline (A LOT) and hashing it out with my Ideal Reader, and Best Crit Partner (my support team).

I also wish I had known I would enjoy blogging as much, because it allows me to integrate my love of photography into the writing of the posts.

Writing restores my equilibrium, and gives me an outlet for my imagination.

It would have been nice to know that the more I write the easier it becomes. When I first started it was easy to write the first part of a story, but difficult to finish. Now it's easy for me to finish what I start, too. It would have been encouraging to know that.

That most agents lost sight of their role, thinking that they were in the "selling to publishers" business, but rather are in the "helping their authors reach the greatest number of readers and achieve the greatest possible commercial and literary success" business. -- Barry Eisler

Also, that going the Legacy Publishing route isn't the only way to make money and achieve the above stated ends.

I would tell my younger self this is a long-haul proposition so settle my butt in for the ride.

I wish I had known there were resources out there that could teach me how to do it right from the beginning - or at least less wrong. I spent a lot of time writing really badly. Really. Really. Badly.

I would tell my younger self to start writing right then and there, instead of wasting a bunch of time figuring out other stuff to do with my life! Writing is it, but it took me ten years to figure that out.

That by the time I finished a particular book, the market would be flooded with them.

I wish I'd known there was an automatic line spacer button in Word. I double-spaced my first entire manuscript manually. D'oh!

That the world will do it's best to distract you, derail you. DON'T LET IT.

I would have told myself to get it on paper and worry about quality later. I spent far too much time trying to write brilliant first drafts. Or sometimes just waiting for brilliant inspiration.

I should have looked at it as the faster you get the bad stuff out, the quicker you get to the good stuff. I'd sum it up as: Never rejected. Never published.

it is funny. there are things i wish i had known, like to be really consistent with names and nicknames of characters as fixing it all later is a nightmare and then there are things i am so happy i did not know. if i had know that it would be six years between beginning the writing and seeing it in barnes and noble, i might never have done it! but i am so happy i went into it blind and just kept going!

In practical terms, to OUTLINE!!!! To have some idea of where a story is GOING before just plunging in with what I thought then was lovely prose. (Ahem.)

But to my younger, child self? That what I think and feel matters, and that writing is a boundless place to explore all of that. That the confines of everyday life don't exist there.

Anon(who wished for automatic double-space knowledge)--I had already written two whole books before someone showed me how to use the automatic-paragraph-indent in Word! I hadn't known such a thing existed. I couldn't believe how many spacebar hits I'd wasted! It was a glorious discovery. =P

I wish I'd realized that as busy as I thought I was in college, I was totally wrong and should have been using that time to get more writing done! So much Ninja Gaiden...

I wish I'd known there was a huge list of things I didn't even know I didn't know.

I wish I'd told myself to never slow down, to keep on writing and writing and writing and writing no matter how much the ideas sucked! You can always make it better later.

I wouldn't tell my beginning writer-self anything. In fact, there are quite a few things I'd love to un-tell my current writer-self. Like how frustrating it will be to find an agent or a publisher. How disheartening it is to get critique advice from people who clearly don't like anything about your writing/genre/characters/voice. How many hours can be spent re-writing and re-writing and re-writing. And re-writing.

I would dearly love to get back to that initial enthusiasm and confidence and sense of wonder that carried me through a NaNoWriMo with stars in my eyes.

I still love writing, but its like marriage. The newlywed days are over and now I have to face the day-to-day reality of sweaty socks and morning breath.

It's OK to change your plans along the way.

Seriously. I'm cool with revising outlines, changing character names and titles and subplots and whatever, and most everything else now, but starting out, I was so rigid. I had to conform to my original vision or I was betraying something. Going with the flow makes me a lot less stressed out and probably prepares me better for dealing with the publishing world when/once I do sell a book.

I'm only just starting now, but I would love to tell me 10 years ago that it's OK to write with the aim of making money out of it, and that you're never too young to get started.

I wish that I knew earlier what true editing entailed. I used to think it was all about fixing the wording. Now I understand that it involves so much more. Pacing, structure, plot, and so on.

I also wish I'd been less stubborn about not outlining back them. My books would have been a lot better when I first started if I'd planned better.

I don't think I'd change things. I've learned so much since I started, especially in the last five years. It's a huge and incredible journey, and knowing too much would have made those first steps more intimidating.

I think while we're learning about business and craft, so much time has to be spent writing and editing peers (but especially writing) in order to grow properly--at least that's true for me. I simply wasn't ready, but I wouldn't have learned all I had if I had known that. I think the writing, the rejections, the critique groups--it all seasons us. And if we persevere, we turn out better for it.

There are still so many people who know so much more than I do, and there always will be. Always. But I'll learn over time, as I'm ready for each new discovery. The unknown helps fuel me because I continue to believe something great is around the next corner--and if not there, the corner after that. I wouldn't want anyone--not even my future self--to tell me otherwise.

Since I came to writing a little later in life-43,I'm still learning the ropes. I have no regrets so far. Every mistake I've made I've learned from.It's a journey I have fell in love with.

That writing a book is not as easy as reading one.

that I can't stop

I wish I'd known how to bake an angel food cake and how to become invisible and how to fly.

That I'm not alone!

When I started the writing process I didn't know any writers. At first I never thought to look online and find some, then I figured I would write the first draft and deal with the rest afterwards. Had I known what an amazing community was out there, just waiting to be introduced to me, I would've gotten involved a lot sooner.

That being said, I can appreciate the way things have turned out so far. It'd have been nice to know I wasn't alone earlier on, but at the same time, I appreciate things a little differently having found them late.

That maintaining a hard daily writing routine was far more important than any single book.

By 'hard' I mean truly working at getting better, studying others' work that I felt had power, actively trying out different approaches, not settling for - in the words of Edward de Bono - 'the first right answer.' In other words, that writing is more than merely typing words that I made up in my head.

Fortunately, I did figure those things out, it just took longer than I would've liked.

Still struggling with the 'daily' part, though.

I wish I could have told myself that even if I've seen some really lousy and boring books get published. That doesn't necessarily mean my awesome engaging totally unique book is going to have an easy time convincing an agent to take a chance.

I think I'd also have told myself not to put all my hopes in one dream agent with a dreamy smile. Cause when you get rejected by the one you'd been hoping for for your whole third draft ... huts like a bugger!

Nathan, I like what you learned about writing. I agree that the journey a writer takes in creating each manuscript is an awesome experience – it’s like visiting a brand new world and walking around inside it every time you write a manuscript.

As far as what I wish I had known when I started writing ... I wish I had known how much I would love it, and wish I had double-majored in Creative Writing in college and gone on to get an M.F.A. in Creative Writing. I originally went to college for Journalism, switched my major to Psychology, and later went to graduate school in Clinical Psychology. I still love Psychology and enjoyed working in that field, but I wish I had started writing novels much sooner than I did.

That I'm at my best when I'm writing. I think that would've prompted me to start earlier.

I wish I'd have had something impossible; the long view.

Oh, and that it's addicting.

It's okay not to know what you're doing. The only right way is your way. So write. Just write. Process and craft and such will come later. Enjoy the freedom while you can.