How to use this Page

THANK YOU!!!!

Amen. Be committed, but know that commitment means different things to different people. Write what you can, when you can.

Well, if you have a wife, kids, a full time teaching job, and a book being published, you may find your schedule a little hectic. So yeah, you may not be writing every single day.

And sometimes that day or two or three off is just what you need to recharge the batteries.

Hmm. I've never interpreted that advice as "write every single calendar day", but more, if there's a day you've designated as a writing day, then you need to write.

If you set weekends as writing days, you probably feel like you need to write something each weekend.

I think about the only 'rule' for writing that should ever be stated, anywhere, is IF IT WORKS FOR YOU, DO IT.


Provided, of course, it's legal and not injurious.

Thank you! One of those things that always intimidated me about writing was that, everywhere I turned, the one advice I saw was "if you want to get better, you have to write everyday."

Well... That doesn't work all the time, and somehow it made me feel that I was not doing enough to become better. It is only now that I am getting comfortable with the idea that so long as I write, it does not have to be every day at 5:00am, after exercising but before getting ready for work.

Sometimes that just doesn't happen.

I've tried it both ways. Right now the morning thing works well for me because I feel like my head is in the story every day, if only for an hour. But I will admit, in the past it really helped to have the uninterrupted stream of hours on weekends to get big chunks done. I think it really depends on a writer as person. If you write, than you're a writer, even if you're not on a schedule.

I think this idea is promoted by some who think that in order to make writing their "job," they have to go to work every day. It may be a result of so many thinking they have to go to school to become "writers."
Many years ago I remember listening to a then popular writer deplore that there were so many people out there writing who had little to say -- they just liked the glamour of being a writer. His advice was don't bother until you have a story you need to tell. While I believe that one often discovers what one has to say by writing, I also think there are a lot of people just putting words on computers or paper because they need to make their daily word count so they can call themselves writers.But who is reading them?
It's a balance.

I've been a NYT bestselling author, an editor & a publisher for decades & never heard this. What I do think is that you need to write consistently (which is not the same as every day).

What you do need to do everyday is to read & read a lot. To feed the muses, to stay close to the language.

I agree that myth may have caused a lot of writer guilt over the years. I'd say write whenever you can, but what's absolutely necessary is to be a writer every day.

i've always said this to old school types who insist that the only way to write is to do it methodically, every day, as you would a job. Well, I don't want writing to become a job, as in an obligation. I want it to stay a joy. I do think that (for me) it's important to visit the world of whatever I'm working on - even if it's just to think through a scene or wonder about a character's motivation. Happily, I can do this while driving or in the shower so that IS something I do every day.

I learned this the hard way after I spent nearly every day forcing out writing that wasn't very good, because I really needed time to mull over the story. It's nice to see this reconfirmed!

I agree!

I don't always write every day, but I try to do something writing related. That can be reading a book or planning a post by doing research.

Nathan, Hallelujah! Someone who agrees with my writing style. I identify with Lawrence Block's description of the Sunday Writer in his book, Telling Lies For Fun And Profit. I've had several novels published by traditional publishers, but...(said in hushed tones)...some days I don't write.
Thanks for the post.

Douglas Adams hardly ever wrote and tended to do it only when forced, at that.

I hear so many conflicting reports about this. Write when you can, write everyday to get yourself used to writing every day. Write write write... *sigh*

So confuzzled.

It depends on how productive you want to be and if you want to be a professional (part of which means you write even when you don't feel like it. Or would you rather have a doctor who shows up only when he feels like it?) The writing quota that has fed my family.

However, I do agree to this extent: I counsel a WEEKLY quota, and writing 6 days a week. Thus, if you miss a day, you don't beat yourself up. You adjust the other days. And you take a whole day off to recharge. Works wonders.

Even if you have full time obligations, find the number of words you can COMFORTABLY do in a week. Then up that by 10% and go for it.

As Peter DeVries put it: "I only write when I'm inspired, and I see to it that I’m inspired at nine o’clock every morning."

I WANT to write every day. I THINK about my current story every day. But to actually do it is another matter. Full time day job, kids, and just life has a way of saying oh hell no. Plus I actually need a few hours sleep if anything is going to make sense. Even with my schedule I think I'm going pretty good.

Thanks for this.

Very inspiring! Thank you! And I hope you're settling in the Big Apple nicely. :D

Thanks for this Nathan! When I was first struggling to get my fiction published--and working two jobs--a guy at a party asked me if I wrote every day. I said I didn't, but I wrote regularly. He said I couldn't call myself a writer if I didn't write every day of the week. I felt like such a failure. Then I started asking successful writers what they thought. NOT ONE said they wrote every single day.

I agree with what Ruth Harris said. To be a good writer, you must READ every day.

Although I'm not sure this once a month thing is working for me either.

I agree with you, Nathan. I think it's more important to have writing goals for more flexible periods of time, such as for a week, and accommodate "life" in the schedule too. Having buffers can protect you from burnout.

I think the key, as has been pointed out by others, is a) consistency (however often it may be) and b) to not go crazy in the process of writing...it's okay to take breaks and remember that there is more to life than writing!

Very good food for thought, Nathan, as usual!

Definitely! I write (or do something related) most days, but it's normal with any job to have a weekend of some sort where you don't work. The key point is having discipline. If you shove all your writing into a few days a week, but do it consistently and produce enough that way, then more power to you.

I'm more of a weekly quota person, anyway. As long as I meet my goals for a week, I don't care if I do it in three days or five or seven. The flexibility is nice.

AGREED! I've always been wary of that advice.

On that note, it's not necessary to write fiction every day. In my day job, I write copy and brainstorm for websites and apps. I find that that kind of writing (not even every day) keeps my brain trained quite well, thankyouverymuch.

I heard a woman at the San Francisco Writers Conference say, "Sometimes I'm writing when I'm getting things ready for dinner, and my husband doesn't realize I'm doing character development while my head is in the refrigerator."

Sometimes writing needs us to be away from it for a while for it to really cook.

AWESOME advice!

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I mean, I try to do something every day. A lot of days that may mean looking for places to submit poems and short stories, or communicating with friends who are reading my chapters, or doing some kind of writing that pertains to my job. Even when I do write, as often as not it's not writing writing, it's revising and putting in research time. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Oh my gosh! Thank you! I'm sorry I'm such a weakling I needed your permission to feel like a writer anyway, but thanks for giving it.

Claudine

Thanks for the message that there are so many different types of writer lifestyles.

In undergrad I took an intensive course which focused on the link between writers' lives and their work. Whenever I feel writer's guilt or think about how I should write everyday, I try to remember William Carlos Williams.

He was a doctor and wrote poetry and thought poetry while he worked, after he got home, or on his off-days. Those of us with certain aspirations can't resist demanding careers, but it doesn't make us any less valued in the writing community.

Thanks for the reminder!

Let's not forget that if you make yourself write everyday, that's also 7 days of content to edit. The more forced the writing, the more editing and deleting. I'd assume that most people don't have time for that, as well.

By the way, brilliant accompanying illustration!

Nathan, I read with an enormous sigh of relief.

I follow a number of blogs that are discussing various writing programs.

With a busy schedule that simply doesn't have enough time, I was starting to feel like an outlier on the author's bell curve.

Thanks for the calming voice. I write when I can, or when I feel inspired by my dark inner muse.

I won't feel guilty about not being able to do more.

Zack....

Oh ThankYouThankYou for saying this! You're the best. Completely brilliant.

Now I just need to work on that "high productivity" part ...

I'm trying to work out a way to write while I'm asleep.

I have learned to write when I want to write rather than forcing myself to write. In the long run I get more done this way, because if I burn myself out completely I'll stop writing for a much longer time.

Here's my thing: I'm not good enough to take a day off. The clock's ticking and I don't want to look back and think I could've been better had I worked a little harder, gotten up a little earlier.

I understand the balance with life and other jobs, but for me, it comes down to lack of skill and power of language. I'd be a fool not to get in the cages every day. Just not gifted enough to take that chance.

I absolutely wholeheartedly agree with you. Sort of.

I don't write on a schedule, either. Pretty much, it's when I know I'll have time free, such as on the train to work or home, or on a weekend.

I used to think I had to write every day. In fact, I used to think I had to finish, at least in rough draft, a novel a year.

And that was when I had agents who seemed to encourage me to do that.

Then I became a journalist, and wrote something almost every day anyway. And then I began to realize that whether it's a letter, an email, a status post on ebay, or even a tweet, it's still writing.

In fact, when I work on my motorcycle, it's writing. Really. Sometimes even when I'm riding it. Because it frees up my mind, or my subconscious mind, or whatever, to solve literary problems like word choice, or plot, or structure, or even ideas. Anything that is meditative--that takes you inside yourself, for an undetermined amount of time, to think, does that.

So. Yes. I agree with you. You don't really have to sit down and physically "write" something every day or risk losing your ability, craft, skill, talent, gift, whatever you want to call it.

But you do have to engage, even subconsciously, in the creative process. Every day. Even if it's only day-dreaming, that turns out to be the basis for a novel. Or a neat turn of phrase in a tweet or other mostly off-hand thing.

Or so I believe.

And actually, if you do any of the above, you can write a rough draft of a novel, at least, in a year.

It's a question of goal setting rather than enforced rigor.

I learned early on that writing when my muse is on coffee break only produces drivel. Sometimes it's best to just take a break and regroup. The words will flow when they flow. Great post, enjoyed reading it.

What a re...LIEF!
Now, will you come do to my floors what is being done in the picture?
I mean, since you're not writing everyday...;)

I was taught this as well, but have never held to it. If you force yourself to write, the story suffers. The one thing I do believe in, though, is that nothing should ever be thrown away or deleted. You never know when that rough draft is the only one with a line in it that you decide you really want to use or if those paragraphs you wrote and tossed were actually useable. Even if it's a note on a napkin, I keep it. But I don't write everyday. ^_^

Sorry to disagree, but when I wrote my second novel I worked on it five days a week. If I missed a day, I'd make it up on the weekend. If you want a career in writing, you need to treat it like a job. And I'm a single mother who was working full-time. The question to ask yourself is: How bad do you want it?

I wanted to finish my book very badly. I would have lost momentum had I written any less. From what I've seen, the most successful writers consider their writing top priority--even more so than family (though they'd never admit it). I would wager they spend more time on their writing than they do with their family.

This is good to hear.

While it'd be great to write every day, I'm at peace with the fact that I'm slow and not super prolific. It takes me a while to settle into the right headspace, I can't just 'switch it on' and write in hour-or-less chunks. As long as I'm steadily making progress on my novel (my first), I don't beat myself up too much.

If it turns into a chore I won't finish it at all.

Perhaps the discipline will come with experience. Certainly if I didn't have another day job I would do thinks a bit differently.

That is so right! Every writer is different and has their own way of doing it.

I think the reason it's said that to be a writer you must write every day is because for some people, if they *don't* get into the habit of doing something on a regular basis, it's that much easier to put it off. I count myself among them.

I want to add that if you feel driven to write every day you'd better have a very understanding partner, or better still one who is as driven as you are.

Voice of experience here.

Thanks for this post. Very refreshing for those of us who can't write full time.

I find that when someone or some idea begins to impose rules on writing, for me, it takes the joy out of it. Finding my own rhythm about it took a long time but I think the best thing is knowing yourself and adhering to your own writing style. I respond better to deadlines than to daily quotas. Following your passion shouldn't equal drudgery. Also, I agree with others here that when I'm not typing at the keyboard, I'm still writing by continuously engaging in creative pursuits to feed the fire.

Totally agree. When I was first starting and I saw this splattered all over people's blogs, I started feeling demotivated because I felt like I didn't have what it takes. People just need to find their own rhythm and what works best for them. That's all there is to it.

I'm happy if I can fit in four writing sessions a week, and each session is no more than 2 hours. (usually about 90 minutes). At the moment, I work full-time. I always felt guilty for not writing more, but I just finished my 4th novel in three years, so I'm not doing too badly considering. (plus a partially finished one.)

Yesterday was a rare luxury where I didn't write and didn't feel guilty because I had sent my mss off to the editor Sunday evening. It felt good to have a breather.

Yes, it is necessary for some authors to write every day. Especially genre authors who are up against a great deal of competition. It's also something we like to do and don't feel forced doing...as career authors, not part time authors.

And there are career writers out here. We aren't doing it because we're trying to be the next 50 Shades or whatever the next big book is. We're doing it because we LOVE doing it. We can't wait to do it.

You're making a good point here, that writing is different for all authors and some can't work every day. But if you do write every day there's nothing wrong with that either.

I disagree. Like any craft, writing takes practice and commitment. No, you don't have to write every day. But you should. If you are a professional athlete, you can bet you will work out every day. If you are a scholar, you will read every day. If you are a commercial pilot, you better damn sure be studying your charts and weather every day. To say that, as a writer, you don't need to write every day is to give people an excuse not to. And we have plenty of excuses for that already. If you are a professional or want to become one, you work at it *every day*. That is what separates the good from the truly great. I am not there yet, but I write every day. And I will continue to do so until I am great (or dead).

I like to write every day, but I think I psych myself out sometimes. The "need" to write all the time blocks me because I'm to anxious about getting enough done in a day. Thanks for this post! Maybe I'll relax a little!

I used to write every day, but I've learned that I've been missing out on alot of life at the same time.

Thank you! It's so refreshing to hear a voice of (relatively) undriven reason in this business!

I agree that you don’t need to write every day. However, sometimes it is too easy to not write if you do not have a set schedule or a self-imposed deadline for your writing. Finding a balance is important and hard. I find I write in chucks. I will write every day for a week or two and then take time off. Between making quality time for my Wife and 3 kids, a full time and part time teaching job, and everything else; making writing a priority on daily basis is not always possible. Thanks for the encouraging post!!

Whew! lol

This post was an Ah-Ha moment for me! I thought you had to do it every day! That's what every body said! So I wouldn't write because why do it if you weren't going to do it the "right way". You just opened my world up! Thank you!! <3

Wow, Nathan, this is such a wonderful post. When I read it, a great sigh of relief went through me.

I don't write every day, and don't think that would fit my natural rhythm. I feel I write better when I am rested and open, not exhausted and pressured. I need space and openness inside myself, to access my best work.

But - it's so hard not to feel guilty on some level for not doing with the daily writing thing, even if I know it's wrong for me. This post was so permission giving. What a gift. Thank you, Nathan!

Thank you!!!

Funny how helpful it is to have that express permission.

Committing to writing joyfully, rather than writing because I felt obligated, got me writing six days a week and enjoying it. No more feeling guilty for not writing that seventh day.

Yes! Thank you! For a few years, I did push myself to write everyday, sick or healthy, home or on vacation. A bad concussion set me off that track. Now, I write when I can and I don't make myself sick about it -- and I think I'm writing better and (gasp) enjoying it much more.

Thank you for "saying" this. I have been cracking my skull trying to find how to develop my writing and this is not helping.. :)

Personally, I find that writing every day actually makes it easier for me. Obviously, when I'm between projects, I don't. But when I've got a goal or something to work on, I'll squeeze in the time as often as I physically can, because it helps me to write more coherently and I don't lose track of my plot :D

But agents also have great incentive to please publishers because they hope to place many additional authors with them. So they may not submit a manuscript with an editor to whom they've just given another client's manuscript so as to not overwhelm the editor. They may tread lightly when the author objects to the publisher's lack of marketing or other problems, so as not to be regarded as a pesky agent. And since they get only 15 percent, they may not fight too hard about the amount of an author's advance. An increase of $1,000 is a big deal to the author but only nets the agent $150; and the agent doesn't want to be seen as difficult over such a small amount of money (to her, not to her client), so she may tell the client to take the deal. Etc., etc.

But agents do like to promote the idea that they are buddies with publishers, so that potential clients will gravitate in their direction. I've learned, however, that agents are no more "friends" with publishers than the school nerd is with the in crowd.

Is there a difference between the way an agent views a new or midlist author and the way she views a bestselling author? While I agree with your post in that agents' interests are well aligned with those of bestselling authors, don't editors represent a bigger flow of potential profit to an agent than the weaker-selling authors in her stable?

Author-

That hasn't been my experience. Agents have different styles - some prefer to cajole, some prefer to fight - but they're both means to an end, which is to get what their clients want. And every agent I know will fight for the last cent.

It's more important for an agent to please their clients and keep them. It's way way way harder to find good clients than it is to try to keep them happy.

" And since they get only 15 percent, they may not fight too hard about the amount of an author's advance."

Uh. What? No, that's totally incorrect. It IS in an agent's best interest to get their client the best deal possible. That often goes hand in hand with the largest advance offer they're able to obtain from a publisher (though not always). Agents, you know, DO need to make a living. And agenting is often so time consuming that it makes it more difficult and less sustainable to have jobs on the side. So I have no idea where you got that misinformation.

Mike-

No, because there is not an endless flow of potentially profitable clients, so it pays to keep everyone happy. Most agents are looking to build their new and midlist authors into something more.

"there is not an endless flow of potentially profitable clients"

Didn't you used to get tens of thousands of queries per year?

Mike-

Yep. And every one of them thought they were a potentially profitable author, which sadly isn't the case. There's a very small sliver of those that I would be able to sell to a publisher, a smaller sliver than that that I was the right agent for. I think everyone imagines agents choosing between potential best seller after potential best seller - I know I did before I started agenting. That's not how it works though, unfortunately.

Authors: money is money is money. And? an agent's biggest motto is Time Is Money. The ONLY reason to tread carefully around publishers is for the publisher to not think YOU, the author, is a problem child. They already know we're difficult and bellicose. It's our job. And mid list, small, front list? all authors that are profitable, dependable, and sane contribute to that thing agents call "rent." The Agent is Friends with Publishers idea is valid insofar as it speaks to reputation: if an agent consistently submits worthwhile, and accurately aimed material to a publisher, is known for his/her taste and ethics, is known NOT to be vicious and dangerous just for sport, and is known not to play dirty? Such agents are valued more among publishers, and will garner more of their attention. Period.

Nathan, thanks for this voice of sanity. I've been selling professionally (to major New York publishers) for about 30 years now -- gosh, that's an embarrassingly long time! -- and have seen enormous changes over the years.

I've been with my agent for two of those three decades. He knows the editor with whom I do most of my work very well -- which has nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with knowing just how hard he can push and on what issues, and where the deal-breakers are. We've walked away from offers, and we've also accepted others because they supported my overall career goals.

He never makes decisions for me -- we do it together, and I have the final say. But I think about this stuff only every few years, since at this point he's getting multi-book contracts for me -- but this is his profession. He works at it every day, year after year. Not only does he have the pulse of the market in general, but he brings to the discussion what this means in terms of my long-term goals. He's not only my advocate in negotiating contracts, he's a seasoned veteran of publishing wars who loves my work and has gotten me a far better deal than I could have wrangled more times than I can count.

Nathan,

I think I'm in agreement with Mike. All things being equal, yes, an agent is going to go to bat for a client. But how often is everything equal? As in, everyone has the same amount to gain or lose?

A publisher that is doing pretty well (remember those days, lol) won't feel the same need to cater to some new literary author as perhaps a less-flush firm.

On the other side of the coin, if the author is big-name with multiple titles on the bestseller list and movie deals to match, then she might have enough suitors that she can actively dictate the terms to a given publisher.

A smart agent will, and should, read the situation to determine who's in the advantage here. This will determine who's going to get more stick and who's going to get more carrot.

So to sum up, I don't think agents are in bed with publishers, but I also don't think they're in bed with their clients, either. As you said, they're in bed with their 'own' bottom-line, and like anybody else, they'll put a client's interests over the publisher's or vice-versa as long as THEIR bottom-line is above both.

Bill

Bill-

I'm not sure I understand your premise. I can't think of a single time I ever had to make a decision for one client at the expense of another client.

I see you deleted that guy, NB, you can delete my first comment too, because it doesn't make much sense without his.

:)

I'm not sure I can get into the debate of your actual point though, because I've never had an agent.

Nathan,

With respect, I honestly don't think you can use yourself as an example. If every agent had your level of dedication to doing a good and honest job, then they'd be less horror stories floating out there.

The #QUERYFAIL debacle proved that.

Some agents, like you, will do a job right. Others, will look out for themselves only.

Bill

Bill-

I definitely appreciate the compliment, though I think having worked in the business there are more reputable agents out there than bad, at least among the ones who are actually making a living at it. It's unfortunate there are still so many shady and bad agents out there giving the rest a bad name, but thankfully the Internet makes it much easier to weed those out.

Not sure what made me smile more, "monster mcmonsterpants" or "publisher sorcery" I do heart you so, Nathan.

I've read more than a few views on the issue of agents writing to the DOJ. And I think your post is a focus on what many agents feel. But to take it a step further I don't think all agents are in agreement with what's going on and I've noticed that most have gone totally silent with regard to things like the letter to the DOJ.

Other issues like conflict of interest with regard to agents operating publishing services have also been extremely toned down due to the conflict of interest issue...if they have been mentioned at all. I know agents who have embraced e-publishing and digital books and I know some who still think e-books are going to ruin publishing as they know it.

The fact remains, and a judge has already stated this, that some form of collusion allegedly took place to fix e-book prices and agents should not have become involved with this. There are many facts and many good articles about this all over the Internet. It's not just a trumped up charge. And I find it frustrating when I see literary agents getting involved in something like this, especially when it involves a serious accusation like collusion. These laws are in place to protect consumers, not publisher, agents, or authors. I would imagine other agents who have remained silent feel the same way and are afraid to speak up because of possible backlash.

Nathan, my ex-agent said outright, "I could call them up and try to find out what went wrong" (we'd just lost a deal for reasons no one would or could explain, even though the book was already on the schedule and marketing was at work on it) "but I still have to work with them in the future with other clients."

anon-

Definitely agree with you for the most part. I do think agents have as much right to weigh in on the DOJ lawsuit as anyone else (and the DOJ actively solicited and published commentary from pretty much everyone from agents to Aunt Melva) especially to the extent that they're speaking on behalf of their clients, but at the very least, yes, I think it's important to note that even in cases where some agents agreed with publishers agents are not monoliths and opinions definitely vary.

anon-

I can see why they're your ex-agent.

Funny how so many in the comments here want define agent as "bad agent". That most agents aren't quality like Nathan was evidently etc etc.

Why instead is it so hard to define agent as agent. And that like in all professions there are those who are good at their job and those who aren't. Agents ought to have the relationship with their clients that Nathan outlined. If they don't, that isn't an example of typical agent behavior, but an example of bad agent behavior.

Yes, some agents behave badly, those aren't people good at their job and therefore should not be held up as a comparison

In terms of what agents and editors do and say and what they want and don't want...

I think we writers tend to think it's all about us. It's not. It's all about our stories. I'm a mid-lister who suddenly got a six-figure deal one day. Why? Because I wrote one book which, unlike my other books, appeared to several editors to have significant sales potential.

It's not like certain authors are singled out for special treatment. Certain manuscripts are. A manuscript just hits the right note with enough people that its author gets lucky.

It's my impression that this happens fairly often. As in on a more or less daily basis, to someone.

To the anonymous example with the ex-agent-- There are defininetly politics involed (i.e. I do have to work with them on other clients...) but only the bad agents let you see that side of things. AND, only bad agents would look at advocating for their clients as an impedement on future dealings with a publisher. If someone cannot advocate for you without burning bridges, then I think there are some larger issues at play that transcend their role as agent and go to their role as effective business person/human.

I was thinking about the opening of your post Nathan, with the proposal that its a myth that authors are working for publishers... BUT isn't it true? When we sell a book to a publisher, does not that publisher become a "client" so far as that book is concerned? We edit to address the editor's - and not aunt Milly's - comments, because the editor is one who will ultimately accept the manuscript and who is, you know, footing the bill.

I don't think this impacts the point of your post at all when it comes to agents, but was just curious as to the opening :)

Alex-

I'd call it working with, not for.

I have a feeling you're colluding with some sort of mattress company and are getting a kickback.

I was told that agents get 15% for the life of the project plus some subsidy so they can make some nice change.
I don't have an agent and have never worked with one.I have made the decision to self publish.It seems to suit me.

One thing to keep in mind is that a good agent who's looking out for their client's best-interest might very well play to the publisher's interests rather than the author's. Publishing is a dance; a game if you will, and a savvy agent has to know where to push and pull.

For instance, an agent's client might not be happy with the paltry advance from a given publisher, and the agent might choose to not contest it, in spite of their client's protests. The agent might do this because they know that while said publisher's advance was lacking, they have an effective marketing and promotion program, one which might render the small advance moot with a large number of sales.

Basically the smart agent isn't "in bed" with the publisher, but rather, they're choosing the publisher's interests over their client's in the short term in order to yield a long term gain for both parties.

And thus, increasing their own bottom-line.

Bill

Bill - any examples of your hypothesis in reality?

I agree with Author and find the comment "Anon's" former agent made totally believable. I was thinking that before I saw the comment.

My fiance is a sports literary agent. You should see the stuff he has to go through to get those books sold, and in his case on the shelves and online. I can't speak for others but they do all the work in "hopes" of getting a sale. They do fight damn hard for 15%- that's the only way they make a living. That 150.00 bucks pays a phone bill, buys groceries and gas money. Agents don't get paid anything until that sale and sourcing good clients takes up most of their time. Many authors don't read submission guidelines, send crap titled Dear Agent (or worse yet, typos in the first line of their manuscript) and don't do their homework- sending fiction to a non-fiction agent. You try making a living for free and see how easy that is.Even seasoned authors can make a mistake with signing a contract. An agent is skilled in negotiating for the best terms for the author- not the publisher, otherwise they aren't going to gain anything. It takes courage and guts to cold call and get deals done. I didn't know a lot about their work until I ventured deeper into the world of publishing, but I have the highest respect for literary agents. On that note there is a difference between those that work for an agency vs those that go it alone. I find that the go it alone ones are those that are willing to go the extra mile- those that you can call when your book hasn't been ordered, and those that actually pick up a phone when you need them. Research the best option for you, but know that a good agent is in the author's corner. Always.

I've enjoyed this discussion, especially since I recently acquired an agent. My take on it: I hired the agent. It's his job to represent me to publishers. He may recommend one publisher over another but for reasons such as marketing assistance or their quickness in getting a book into print, things that might not be obvious to the author.

Bill-

The reason that doesn't is that if an agent accepts a paltry advance from a publisher the publisher will think they are a pushover and will lowball them the next time. There's no benefit at all to an agent to just sit back and accept a deal they know to be crappy. If anything, negotiating the heck out of low advances is a great opportunity to show the publisher not to mess around in the future.

The only reason to accept a low advance is if the agent is not confident they can get a better deal elsewhere. That's the *only* reason. Agenting is a mix of honey and vinegar, and low advances bring out the vinegar.

This is a good post. I admit that I feel/think like this. I think IF a publisher wanted my work, I"d be like "okay" and want to do things the way they want it done (in fear they'll change their mind). That seems ridiculously petty of me I guess, but I tend to try not to be "difficult" in all situations in life, so maybe its in me.
Something to think about.

Nathan, have you ever had an interveiw on another blog or site or mentioned your journey here? I'm not sure, but for your (great) books , I'm wondering :
- did you have an agent (I keep thinking you couldn't have, you're like a built-in "jack of all trades" :)
- how long did it take you to write the first draft of Jacob and did you plan/sit on it for a long time beforehand?
- how many novels did you write prior to Jacob?
- did your first draft change drastically from your last?


I'm currently just working on my first "real" novel I guess. It's not something I''m in love with, but i'm beginner right now, so I'm not going to be too picky. It's a MG and I anticipate it will be 25,000 - 30,000 words. This might seem ridiculously low, but this kind of novel I'm focusing on my fit in the page-length of works like Roald Dahl, David Walliams, Kevin Bolger, etc...(definitely not LIKE them, because i am not in any way even remotely on the same writing planet as them, but I just mean --well, you know what I mean). Anyway. Great post!

AndieJ.

If all else fails, read Atlas Shrugged to get a clear view of how one should approach publishers:)

I can tell this one comes from your heart, Nathan.

While I entirely 100% purely agree with the idea that everyone in the process is looking out for their own interests every step of the way, I don't really see it as clear-cut as you suggest, Nathan.

The myths you cite are, of course, inflammatory statements that get repeated by people who haven't found their place in the system. Could be sour grapes, could be once-bitten, could be a number of things. They come from emotion, not reason. Thus, to try to reason against them is, unfortunately, futile.

Instead, we need to look at what might cause people to have that emotional reaction that then drives them to say things like "authors and agents are in bed with publishers."

We could cite the callous nature of the rejection^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H query process, for one. There is a bright line between "client" and "member of the slush pile," and many agents don't do their profession's reputation much good in the way they handle the latter. They project a very real sense of an aristocracy, where to be in you have to win their favor, and only they can broker an audience with the royalty (the publishers). In any aristocracy, no one wants to lose favor of the royalty.

So, rightly or wrongly (and I think there's a certain amount of both), the unpublished are left outside wishing they were in, and the agents are the ones blocking the doorway. No matter what an agent says to the unpublished writer at that point, it will ring hollow and condescending.

"We work for our clients, not the publishers." Sounds like, "Once you're in the party, we'll get you an audience with the king. But you're not in the party. Oh, too bad."

"Without authors, agents would have nothing to sell, and publishers would have nothing to publish." Sounds like, "Without the skills of the kitchen staff, we would have nothing to feast on at our party. Hmm. This might need more pepper. Be a dear and go pep it up, hmm?"

I could extend the metaphor, but I'm tired and you're bored.

When we think reasonably, we must conclude that there is no aristocracy, that agents are indeed looking out for their own interests and therefore trying to find and satisfy clients. But the myths that are bothering you today are built on emotions, and those emotional flames are fanned by the behaviors of the very industry that the disgruntled wish they could be a part of.

It's a fascinating cultural study, really. You say publishing is humming along smoothly... and yes, I guess it is, in its own dysfunctional way, for the few people who get into the party.

But it's still true that no one wants to piss off the king. That's why you've seen a huge uptick in the number of people commenting anonymously, I'd wager. They fear for their professional reputation and possible retaliation or repercussions if they say the wrong thing.

The question here is do agents spend more time on clients who sell more books?

The answer: not necessarily. Authors who sell lots of books may occasionally command a bit more attention because they've got more going on (they're selling more translation licenses, they need your help with author events, they need to re-schedule delivery deadlines, and maybe they have a movie deal you're in the middle of), but in reality, the hardest work is done getting new authors off the ground.

It doesn't take a lot of convincing to sell a publisher on a best-selling author, and negotiations for a best-selling client are usually a lot easier because the agent has all the leverage. Contract renewals are usually a cinch, because you worked out the boilerplate the first go-round, and the publisher wants to please you so you don't jump ship.

It's a lot harder to convince a publisher to take a chance on an unknown author, and to negotiate a new contract that's fair and respects the value of the work. Those submissions are long and grueling, those negotiations are more fraught, and after its done selling subsidiary rights, and ensuring the publishers publicity department is on point is an uphill battle.

It is, however, necessary work, because agents can't afford to rest on their laurels. We need fresh blood. An agency can only stay afloat if it has a balanced amount of passive and active income (passive meaning commissions royalties from old books, which tend to decline the older the books get, and active meaning commissions on new advances).

Considering that authors careers peak and wane as well, an agency always needs new and unproven authors on the roster, and they spend an inordinate amount of time compared to the initial returns in income on said authors. Sometimes those relationships bear fruit (best-selling authors don't come out of nowhere, they usually have to work at it for a while) and sometimes they don't. But the reason they don't, is not because the agents are too cozy with publishers, or too busy coaxing some best-selling author to lay a golden egg. Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether people who read books want to read your book, and no amount of agent or publisher attention is going to be decisive in that regard.

Hm, Nathan, I must say I never thought of it that way.

Then again, that might have something to do with being neither represented nor published.

Ah well, lol.

Bill

Nathan, sometimes I think you missed your calling as art purchaser.

A good link to more about the DOJ and alleged collusion...which is why I wondered by any agent would weigh in on this topic at all in my earlier comment.

http://dearauthor.com/news/friday-news-doj-delivers-a-sharp-retort/

Remus-

Definitely a true and reasonable take, though I personally feel like it's a book to book choice rather than a career choice at the beginning. If you're writing a series or genre fiction self-publishing may continue to be the best avenue once you start down that path barring huge success, but other books might lend themselves to giving the traditional publishing process a shot.

And that's just the landscape right now - who knows how things will change in the future.

Geez, please change that strange word to 'usually'.

I'm probably nuts for saying this, but... umm... I'm so far from having a "fan base" of ANY kind that all I can think about is: Am I telling an honestly good story, and telling it well? Until I can answer those questions "Yes" with confidence, I feel like obsessing over publication medium would reflect the same sort of broken thinking as when I obsess about Times New Roman vs. Georgia vs. Courier. (Difference of degree, not of kind.)

Thank you, Nathan, for saying this as I'm also tired of the division. Many minds, many paths and the right choice at the moment may differ twenty years from now. None of us are wedded to the choices we've made forever and with ever-changing technology and delivery systems, hopefully this division becomes outdated thinking too.

Thanks for this, Nathan. I struggled for a long time with this issue but have since learned that, as an independent editor, the best way to serve my clients is to accept the changing canvas of publishing. I now see it as an exciting time in the industry, with more options than ever.

Valerie Brooks
www.TheWriteEdit.com

Fair enough, Nathan. Let's agree that it's a decision that needs to be made for the first published book -- with the caveat that an author might write a dozen books before any one of them gets published.

It all boils down to one thing: Opportunity.

I think it's a grand time to be a writer. We have more freedom in our decision-making than ever before, and more information at our disposal to make educated decisions.

"And that's just the landscape right now - who knows how things will change in the future."

Exactly. And this is why authors have to pay attention to everything that is going on, and also be willing the move forward with the changes.

Amen.

Self-pub and trad-pub are two different highways to the same goal: readers. We writers need to stop throwing rocks at each other from our respective weedy paths and work on supporting each other (and learning from each other!) as we swirl through the cauldron of innovation that is going on in the industry right now.

If we work together, we can help each other find our own pathways to success.

(Note: I think most writers do this already, as evidenced by the awesome support yesterday across the spectrum of writers (indie and trad-bound) for the release of my latest indie novel. This community knows how to be awesome like no other!)

I really don't see it all that much. I don't get around the web as much as Nathaian I guess, but except for this blog, like what, twice in about a week, an us vs them thing? I felt like it had kinda died off a bit since say, about a year ago.
Most of the wirters I converse with have had a little success with both, have had national bestseller, films adapts and gone the way of small press' and self, and if they have an opinion of eithier they don't share it. They don't seem to really care as much as bloggers do. They care about writing, good stories and getting on.
There are a couple in my circles that have been around and been bitterd by the big six for what ever reason, and I suspect from some of the things they've said that it had as much to do with themselves as anybody.
I go the way of the writer. I write. I don't really care to waste my energy on any, us vs them nonsense. I sit down and write the very best book I can write. And then go through the process of getting it out there, how ever I can.
I would love to replace Snooky or whatever her name is on the bestseller list, lol. i would love to see any literary writer be there instead. But we're not even on the same field. Her personality is her product. I get it. So I don't worry about it.
I think success however you get there is abbout finding your audiance, your peeps and connecting and comunicating and touching lives. Big or small, that's all it is. That's all that matters.

I agree, Nathan.
The only clear distinction I would draw is for those lay folks who know little about publishing, who say, “It’s easy to get published. My two ten-year-old twin cousins both have books out.” Cousins are likely self published, and Mom supplied the credit card. Being paid rather than paying for your writing is still hard.

*No comment on quality in general. We've all read good self-published books and bad books publishers paid good money for.*

The world is full of wars. This is one that need not be.

I totally agree, Nathan. Which is why I was surprised at your post earlier this week because it seemed rather one-sided. In fact, the blog post you linked to from Sarah LaPollas's side was really antagonizing to self-publishers. For example, why is she harping about the term "indie authors"? I'm sorry, but the term has been co-opted by self-publishers and the tide is not going to change in the other direction. It's a fact, and it is actually a very accurate description -- who is working more independently than a self-published author?

She also made a comment about how she had no plans to work with authors who had already self-published. That seems pretty short-sighted to me. Her statements and yours did not seem to mesh with today's post. Self-publishers will obviously tout the benefits of self-publishing. What's wrong with that? They chose it for a reason and they will spread that reason to others. And yes, there are flaws in traditional publishing that new authors should know about.

anon-

I actually agree with Sarah about the term "indie" - to me it has always meant independent publishers like Soho, Greywolf, etc. and I still use "traditional" and "self-publishing" instead of "indie" and "legacy. I understand what you're saying that the spirit of self-publishing is independent, but to me there's a certain oppositional attitude inherent in "indie" and "legacy" that kind of rubs me the wrong way. The word for self-publishing had already existed; I don't know why a new one was needed and why another one had to be co-opted. But I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't call themselves.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily read an endorsement into everything I link to. I don't agree with all of what other people say, even in times when I agree with an author's overall point. That said, I don't see where in Sarah's post she says she wouldn't work with authors who have self-published.

Nathan,

I completely agree with the idea that writers need to support each other. But that is alittle different from taking the stance that all paths to publication are equally beneficial. I don't agree with that, although I definitely agree with the writer's right to choose.

The thing is that although I have a HUGE beef with the publishing industry, because I think it is extremely exploitive of writers, and hurtful to them, I speak about that Because I Care about writers and want them to be treated well. If I have an issue with traditional publishing it has everything to do with supporting other authors.

It's really unfortunate that people often interpret it differently, as though I were attacking the writers rather than the industry. It's a frustrating and inaccurate twist.

I won't and can't be silent about what I see are serious inequities. But I am not trying to take anyone for a ride. I am trying to improve conditions for everyone, from my tiny little corner of the publishing world, which is pretty much posting comments on your blog.

mira-

Perspective is important, I just think some authors bristle at being called exploited when they feel like they are intimately aware of and are living the pros and cons. I think where people may feel attacked is when there's a presumption that they aren't able to decide what's best for their careers.

Nathan, first, I agree with your general point. Personally, I've had books published by an indie-publisher, Splashdown Books, out of New Zealand. Third one coming out next month. I've also self-published some books as well. I've not been traditionally published, and for the time being, don't intend to try. Mainly because contract terms like giving them the rights for the life of the copyright are way too much for me, which I've been told has become standard template and nonnegotiable in most cases.

But at some point that might change. And at some point, I might end up with an offer from a traditional publisher, and I would certainly consider it and decide whether it was a good move or not.

IOW, though I'm not in the market for being traditionally published now, that could change. As another said, who knows where publishing and publishers will be ten or twenty years down the road? At some point, I might be really stupid to not take a traditional publisher's offer.

So I do think it a good thing not to burn bridges or create and us vs. them mentality(though pointing out where there are problems shouldn't be burning bridges, it should be constructive criticism that encourages positive change for everyone involved). And I've even done a blog post on when self-publishing authors can go wrong.

But for the record, I do tend to use indie-publishing and self-publishing interchangeably. My definitions:

Indie-publisher: An entity who uses POD to publish multiple authors' books. (Technically, a self-publisher is an independent publisher, but see the reasons for referring to actual publishers of more than one author with that title.)

Indie-publishing: Any entity who uses POD and/or epublishing to publish a book.

Indie-author: A self-published author.

But I also acknowledge that using the term indie-publisher is more ambiguous than self-publisher. The former could refer to a small publisher using POD, but publishes multiple authors, and the author had to get past their "gates" to get accepted, while the latter can only refer to an individual who has published their novel. So using self-publisher, self-publishing, is more specific. As writers, that is what we strive to do, write clearly.

Oh, but aside from our small disagreement about certain paths to publication, fwiw, I really like what I think you're trying to do in this post - which I interpret as: encouraging writers to detach from the emotions of the landscape in order to make rational decisions about their own books; to think about what people are saying and not let themselves be maniuplated by jumping on a bandwagon prematurely; and to not let themselves be set against other writers.

Bravo for that, Nathan! :)

Nathan,

You have a really good point. I'll have to think about how to phrase it. I could see how people could feel critisized and I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you!

Because I am in no way critiquing writers who are fully informed and still choose to take the traditional path because it serves their interest. I am more concerned that new authors are informed, and that the publishers themselves feel some pressure (as much as I can generate from my tiny little corner). Thank you - I'm grateful for the feedback, I'll work on that.

Thanks, mira.

The last couple of years have indeed produced a plethora of blog exhaust aimed at the face of the traditional publishing industry. My friend, agent Wendy Lawton, has coined a term for this type of vituperative castigation: Occupy Publishing.

Some of this is indeed sour grapes. Some is payback for rejection.

Yet, to be fair, there is merit to some of the complaints. I have a few writer friends who are being treated rather shabbily by their current publishers.

One has been told, in no uncertain terms, that self-publishing anything can lead to dire consequences--from the publisher.

Another has been a good soldier and just turned in her third book in a series. The contract is up and she hasn’t signed another. Suddenly, her editor is not returning her emails. This is unprofessional conduct by an insider who should know better.

There are, however, other writers being treated with eminent fairness by their publishers. And both those writers are happy.

Seriously, having feet in both the traditional and indie world, I’ve not been one to dance a jig at the troubles in traditional publishing. It’s made up of people, mostly people who really do want writers to succeed. They also want to make money for their company. In other words, they’re just like the rest of us. And many of them are hamstrung because there is a system in place grinding with rust caused by the sea change in digital publishing.

I have been most fortunate to have a great agent and good relations with trad publishers. But I have to say this to some inside the walls of the Forbidden City: your bread and butter are writers. At least treat them with professional courtesy.

And to writers: there’s no reason to go around burning bridges. I gagged at one blog I saw where the writer named his editor, laid an unseemly nickname on him and proceeded to flay him publicly for his many perceived sins.

I mean, come on.

It's much more effective and professional to simply go about your business, which is writing, and self-publishing when ready.

We are living in an old black and white Warner Bros. film now. We can get thrown out of the agent’s office and yell back, “I’ll show you! I’m gonna be the biggest star on Broadway someday! You just wait and see!”

And then we can go out and prove ourselves.

There is definitely a bright us-versus-them line between traditional publishing and anything Amazon. Authors aren't drawing that line. But everyone else appears to be, from publishers to agents to booksellers. I think it hurts authors. But this, too, shall pass. One way or another.

First, great post. People are drawing lines where there really don't need to be any lines drawn. I am trying for the 'traditional' way for reasons that are my own. Those reasons are right for me, they may not be right for you, or someone else, but I expect you (the generic you) to respect my decision just as I'll respect yours to self-pub. Good luck and may we meet on the bestseller list! No need for antagonism.

Regarding Sarah's post, there were two things in it that looked like they could have been slaps at all self-pubbers, and one that appeared to imply that she wouldn't even consider you if self-pubbed. However, in reading over the line again, and seeing her responses in the comments, I think it's something that's just been misinterpreted.

Nathan, Sarah wrote in regards to self-published authors:
"Further, they ask me "what I can do for them," while handing me their books, not realizing they've already chosen a path that doesn't include me."

That pretty clearly indicates she would not work with self-published authors.

I realize every link you make is not an endorsement, but it was a jumping off point for your own post.

Self-pubbed and about to be traditionally pubbed, so of course I agree with Nathan. I can do anything I want! (Well, I want to be rich and that's not happening, but it's MY fault!)

This is one of the best "comment" dialogues ever!

anon-

I can't speak for Sarah, but when I was an agent I felt that way about individual projects - it was the rare self-published book that I felt like I could then take to publishers (though there was one where I did just that). For the most part a self-published book will stay a self-published book. But that wouldn't preclude working with a self-published author on their next project.

My hunch is that that's what Sarah meant by that line, but like I said, I can't speak for her.

Yeah, I think she meant she couldn't help with that particular self-published book, not the author in general.

What this argument/debate seems to be doing of late, which I find problematic, is that you are getting a group of self-published folk who are saying you're basically ignorant and/or stupid to try for traditional publishing. They take too much of your well-deserved money. Compared to what you can potentially earn self-publishing, this is an easy statement to make. Publishers can no longer snicker at writers who self-published. We've reached a level where the successes have shown that it's legitimate. It's up to them now to act to balance this tipping of the scales.

What's a fairer compensation from traditional publishing? That's a hard question to answer. How much are the services they provide worth to you as an author, assuming a positive working relationship/experience. Is 10% royalty fair, 15%? I've yet to see any real discussion about what exactly would be deemed reasonable and fair. It's always "traditional sucks, so don't do it." I'd love to see a real, transparent breakdown so we could see just what might legitimately be deemed fair.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that publishers try to get away with the lowest rate they can. The question then becomes, where is the ceiling? At some point, it would break through the bottom line, but there is obviously a gap between what is offered and what can legitimately be given. There's a happy medium in there somewhere that I'd like to see. And writers now have the leverage of self-publishing behind them to begin to ask this kind of question. So, publishers, what is that ceiling number? What royalty rate could you actually be offering me? I'm curious, as are a great many others I'm sure.

I have to agree here to, on the idea that this whole "line in the sand" idea between traditional and self publishing is pretty much nonsense. There's no real reason for it. There is certainly a "viva revolution" mentality in some parts of the self publishing world, this idea of over-throwing/toppling corporate structure, David vs. Goliath, and so on. It has a certain appeal to it.

I can't say I agree with the idea of the oppressed rising up against the oppressor. Does change need to happen? Surely, it does. Authors do deserve better compensation from traditional publishers. The deserve to be treated more fairly when it comes to contractual terms. They have not choice in the matter, I don't think, unless they want to continue to lose writers to the ranks of the self-published.

I'm not overly fond of the in-your-face approach that we see from bloggers like Konrath and Eisler. On the other hand, they're trumpeting a voice that really does need to be heard. Someone has to take up that torch, and I for one, am not that combative. It does serve a useful purpose though of raising the issues to a level that people will listen, which is important.

That said, digital vs traditional is not really an either/or discussion, unless we move into the realm of the industry going entirely to mode where writer's books are printed in a POD environment, but that's another discussion entirely. Too many books don't lend themselves well to digital, so paper will never go away. Certain kinds of books lend themselves very well to digital, like genre fiction, and we may very well see digital dominating those books in the future. It will be a very blended industry more than likely.

For me, traditional will always hold a certain element of appeal, because they provide all of the needed services to get your story into print. Publishing's mentality has been "we're taking all the risk, so we're taking most of the profit." We can argue the level of sharing in this, but it's hard to argue the basic concept. Are you willing to forego most of the profit in order let professionals handle everything else? Given the potential of self-publishing now, that's a difficult question to tackle. Going the other route is just as difficult in my opinion, but again, the potential rewards are higher or can be.
cont'd....

The only people I see discussing this so-called "war" is Konrath and the traditional publishing industry pros who keep posting on this topic. Other than that, everything seems kosher. Have I missed something here? Are there other warmongering blogs I'm not reading? If so, I'll keep it that way. Thanks for the post, Nathan.

Well said, Nathan!

Thanks for being a moderate voice, Nathan. I'm in the unusual position of having had good experiences with traditional publishing even though the contract eventually fell through and of now making my living as a self-published writer (without the traditional base we supposedly need, btw, Remus). Both experiences have been invaluable. Having had a look at both sides of the fence and maintaining ties with people in both worlds, I firmly believe it's a matter of what's right for the writer and for that particular project, not a battle of good versus evil.

I’ve been saying the same thing for a very long time. The other day, I summed up my feelings about recent publishing battles with this tweet: “Media has taught us well how to avoid questioning and moral dilemmas by treating every problem without nuance. Just US vs. THEM...Go!” And I think this goes far beyond publishing. We seem to be geniuses (or idiots) about breaking up very serious issues into only two starkly divided camps: US vs. THEM. I’m beginning to think there may be some deeply biological reason for this. As climate continues to change and more places are wiped out by extreme weather, as worldwide economies that are all connected globally continue to struggle in ways that could bring us all to financial ruin, as we’re being introduced daily to strange new customs in a brand new globally interconnected world, as 50% to 80% of new college graduates around the world are returning home to live with their parents with no future job prospects because college graduates are now hired for a global pool of industry, as we’re threatened by newly emerging viruses and food and water shortages, I think biology is screaming out: “Out of my way! MY group is going to breed and win and SURVIVE!” This is totally irrational, of course, since cooperation, sane management (rather than destruction) of resources, and rapid development of technology would help us out the most. But, there ya have it, when has the human race ever been rational? And, in this chaos, some groups are able to grab power and control. Modern media lets us eat cake in a verbal gladiatorial arena while raking in lots of money in advertising. “Go, go, team!” I think this may also be part of what has led to a sudden rise in anti-birth-control politics. Biology is screaming out: “Breed! Fight! Win!” Not too smart, but the threatened animal brain doesn’t operate on logic.

On the positive side, the creative inventors just keep steaming ahead, inventing new things and helping us move on to a quieter, less endangered place of survival. If SpaceX and other private space companies open up moon bases that alleviate some of the stress from an overpopulated Earth, for instance, maybe we’ll simmer down once again back on our home planet.

As for writers, many just keep quietly steaming ahead, taking us new places. For example, look at what happened to Hugh Howey, the author of the WOOL series. I recognize him from the Kindle Boards! He was just a quiet writer, self-publishing his books through Amazon’s KDP Select Program. Then – wham! – all of a sudden, he’s in a movie bidding war in Hollywood and has a fantastic movie deal, the big publishers around the world offer him book deals and he picks and chooses where to sign and where to remain independent. So awesome! Here’s the story: How My Self-Published Book ‘Wool’ Became A Hot Movie Property. Hugh is about to become a hybrid author, truly independent or “indie.” He’ll soon be self-published, traditionally published, AND have a huge movie deal. So much for “us vs. them.”

After reading this post, I'm compelled to veer in another direction. There are several reasons that have convinced me to self-publish and they're so persuasive that I'm unlikely to consider the alternate route.
Setting aside the issue of whether a book is good or not, well written or not, the fact is that any book written is the fruit of the creativity of the writer, regardless of its nature.
To seek a traditional publisher, you must sell the product of your imagination, offer it to the highest, or in most cases, the only bidder. You loose all rights to its future and if you're not careful and you don't understand the in and out of contracts, you may be losing it forever. If other authors feel as I do, it's like peddling your soul in perpetuity.
From experience, reading some of the new fiction published by other self-published authors, I've found that truly creative people are capable of producing marvelous works if they're allowed the freedom to do so. For a new writer (and who knows what talent still lurks, waiting to amaze us in the future) the task of seeking traditional publishing can be a futile heart-breaker. In the past traditional publishing was the only option, but now new writers have other avenues to make their presence known. They can be self-published.
Rather than be discouraged and depressed by the seeming indifference of endless impersonal rejections, taking years off their lives, they can try to seek the approval of the reader, not a college intern screening the slush pile for the 'next best thing'.
For someone who's traditionally published and obviously satisfied with the experience, you can extol the value of traditional publishing, but for the new writers, unsure of their talent, it's not the best option.
As for me, I'd rather take my fate in my own hands, own my own soul, and not sell it to the highest bidder.
Of course this is an opinion, and there is a saying about opinions that I don't need to repeat here.

When I first read the title I noted to say, "a dichotomy can't be true or false," but after reading your piece I totally understand.

I'm surprised that there's even division on this matter. This division happened really recently. Did you think, say, three years ago, that this would be an issue in need of addressing?

If you make gold, people will develop an attraction. This applies to everything, books included. Yes?

Lucky

I know many writers who are self-pubbed. One or two of them are good writers.

I know many writers who are e-pubbed or indie-pubbed. A few of them are good writers.

I know many writers who are traditionally pubbed. Almost all of them are good writers.

'Nuff said.

I really don't see where anyone has the choice to get published by the traditional publishers. I mean they can choose to submit, but that doesn't mean they have a choice to get published. Its the big publishing houses that choose. And if your work doesn't fit their bill, you don't get published by them, so then you have to choose another means. That's just what I've been seeing and experiencing.

Traditional and self-publishing are processes, and you're right - authors are free to pursue one, the other, or a combination of the two at any time during their writing careers. And the two processes can co-exist peacefully.

However, there are PEOPLE involved in these processes, and when people are involved that are proponents of one OR the other (like in politics), you will invariably get an "us and them" mentality. Ironically, the comments of your post are further evidence of this.

And it doesn't help things, in my view, when you have agents ordering self-published authors (in capital letters no less) to stop calling themselves 'indies' (which you linked to in your last post). Live and let live I say.

Tom C. Cole

Well said, Dianne. My thoughts exactly.

Ha may I say that I guessed a post on this false dichotomy would be coming soon?:) Glad it's finally here. The trad vs indie debate is getting tired... and a bit ugly, I thought.

For those who believe there was or is great potential for exploitation of writers under the current system (and I'm one of those who has such a concern), I've always felt that it muddies the waters when a discussion on such exploitation promptly descends into mud-slinging on an issue which is actually tangential, ie traditional vs indie/self publishing...

Exploitation is exploitation is exploitation... Wherever it begins or ends, it affects all writers at the end, not just those in one particular spectrum of the publishing paths available to us... There should be no 'vs' when it comes to writers choices in the current climate — 'cf' (compare and contrast) seems more appropriate — if only to remind us that we are all still part of the same community, and so that we are in the right frame of mind to support each other unreservedly when exploitation of any kind actually is flagged up by a fellow writer/publishing industry professional...

Sorry, off my soapbox now:) Nice post.

Amen, Nathan.
And I also agree with Tom C. Cole. Nice to see your "by-line" again, Tom.

Thanks for this wonderful and insightful post, Nathan. I've been looking at both options for my novel. Still giving it some thought. But you are so right. Everywhere I turn it feels like a war on the web between self-publishing and going with an agency/publishing house. I too have felt it is what you think is best for your career path. No one way is wrong. Again, well said.

I have to agree with you here, we are really both on the same side and more importantly it's hard to say that one is better than the other because frankly BOTH have put out good and bad books.

Frankly this whole argument is a year out of date. I see so many terms and phrases that were being discussed then. Hybrid author is something I blogged about over a year ago. Setting aside emotions and dealing with business is the same.

Time to move on folks. Everyone's platform is different, everyone's product is different, and everyone's goal is different. To argue about a right or wrong or a side is a waste.

Actually, the new hybrid author is a new breed and that should scare NY. It's a "self" published author who also signs with an Amazon imprint.

The only upside to a NY contract would be well over 6 figures so you're guaranteed some push in house and even then, at BEA in two weeks, you'll see each of the Big 6 really pushing less than 5% of their titles. The elite 5% who are now strongly defending legacy publishing like Scott Turow and Richard Russo. Of course they defend the hand that feeds them well. But my new bone of contention is when those guys slam Amazon, at the same time they need to absolutely insist that their publishers pull their titles from Amazon. Can't have it both ways, guys.

Hi Nathan - I've enjoyed your posts. Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with Remus on this one.

Great post Nathan!!!

I do see the lines in the sand for the first time and and am unhappy to see them.

It's not us vs them for me since I both self and trad publish and have since my first self pubbed book sold well enough to make some noise and get picked up by S&S in 1999. (The dinosaur era before we even called them ebooks!)

I like doing both for different reasons not pertinent here.

I'm also one of the few authors who ever disagree with Joe using my own name and often post there exactly for the reason you've blogged here, Nathan. Because it really isn't black and white one size fits all.

What's exciting now is all the options. As Eisler says and I agree - its a lottery no matter which you do. It's about your goals, your book, your interest to go into business for your self or have partners and on and on. There are reasons to self that have nothing to do with $ just as there are reasons to trad publish that have nothing to do with $.

Not every author who signs a trad contract is stupid. No matter what level they're at- not just the top 10% who are making huge money.

And not every self pubbed author does it b/c they can't get a trad deal.

There's a meme that more than 1000 self pubbed authors sell 1000 books a month - even if the average price they sell them at is $2.99 - and they get $2000 a month - there are wayn more than 1000 trad pubbed authors who make ore than $24,000 a year.

There shouldn't be a line, that's true! What I don't understand is why it's ok for DIY authors to bash the traditional publishing establishment and the authors who prefer that way of publishing, yet I don't see it going the other way. Opinions are fine, but criticizing an author's choice, is not. I have many friends who have chosen to do it themselves. A few have been financially successful. It was never an option for me, and I was ridiculed for it. Saying "the only reason to go with a publisher is..." or being negative about agents and editors, diminishes all writers, all book lovers, all readers. Even within these comments, when your post is asking us to come together, commenters say you're right and then pummel the idea of regular publishing. What I witness is a double standard. It is OK for DIYers to be bitter and negative toward what they don't want to do with their books, but if it goes the other way authors are considered elitist or without vision. Frankly, I worry about myself, not what anyone else does. I prefer not to judged for my choice to publish with a traditional publisher, but on the merit of my book. Just like I do for DIYers whom I choose to read.

Also, the folks who say that traditional publishing is no longer an option, aren't reading Publisher's Marketplace or following the industry closely. I'm involved with dozens of debut authors publishing via traditional publishers and there are more every day.

Nice work Nathan as always.

Nathan said..."I actually agree with Sarah about the term "indie" - to me it has always meant independent publishers like Soho, Greywolf, etc. and I still use "traditional" and "self-publishing" instead of "indie" and "legacy. I understand what you're saying that the spirit of self-publishing is independent, but to me there's a certain oppositional attitude inherent in "indie" and "legacy" that kind of rubs me the wrong way. The word for self-publishing had already existed; I don't know why a new one was needed and why another one had to be co-opted."

I used to feel the same way, too. Until I actually did self-publish...lol. But seriously, what really bothers me is that I somehow get the feeling that self-published authors prefer "indie" to self-published because it elevates them and takes away the stigma of self-publishing. And I think that's wrong. I've had MORE success self-published than traditionally published, and I prefer to embrace the term self-published and help bring credibility to self-publishing.

Different Anon...

Excellent post. I recently self-published my novel and did it for the freedom and ease. But, I in no way have any ill will toward the traditional publishing industry. We are all written word lovers, right?

Amy Sue Nathan said...
"There shouldn't be a line, that's true! What I don't understand is why it's ok for DIY authors to bash the traditional publishing establishment and the authors who prefer that way of publishing, yet I don't see it going the other way."


To be gentle but honest, you aren't looking for it, then.

I know *prominent* writing forums where sucessful self-publishers have been *banned* for posting about self-publishing in positive terms. I've seen writers here on Nathan's comment section call self-published writers frauds. There is a post a few above yours on *this* thread that basicaly says self-published writers can't write. There's a romance author who is famous for trying to destroy the reputations of every self-pubber she encounters because she believes they have NO RIGHT to pubish. I've seen trad writer advocate for the outright censorship of self-pubbed authors. (And, yes, I've seen behavior from the other side that is just as bad.)

If we're going to get over the knee-jerk reaction of dealing with our fears by pointing fingers and shrieking, then we're going to have to acknowledge that the problem exists on both sides because the fear exists on both sides. The fear of INvalidation. The fear of someone else getting what we feel we've worked for. The fear of failure. And so on.

I agree with Karen and share her joy to discover that I too, am a lottery winner! Like her, I was also self-employed and way too used to doing things my own way to consider traditional publishing.

Having said that, I've got no beef with others that choose that path. None of the reasons usually given for that choice resonate with me, but that really doesn't matter.

As a wise person once said"

You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to!

Any commercially published author can self-publish if he wants to. Almost no self-published authors can get their work commercially published.

Self-published authors don't compete with most commercially published authors; self-publishers are flourishing in a market segment in which commercial publishers are unwilling to participate.

If big publishers were to slash prices on slow-selling backlist e-books to $2.99, it would likely push most self-published authors off the radar. However, have a good reason for not wanting to do this; they believe that very cheap backlist e-books would cannibalize their frontlist sales, while most readers of new fiction don't view self-published titles as a substitute product.

Not all authors have a choice. I'm one of those who couldn't get a publisher, primarily because I couldn't even get an agent. I went out on my own -out of necessity- and have since learned that I can sell 1,500 books a month without a publisher OR an agent. I have no ill will for "legacy" authors. Most of the time, when I hear their stories, I just feel sorry for them.

But what does get to me is when people like Scott Turow of the so-called "Author's Guild" write letters to the DOJ making statements like this:

"Let’s hope... the Justice Department reconsiders. The irony bites hard: our government may be on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition. This would be tragic for all of us who value books, and the culture they support."

Make no mistake, the lines have been drawn, and not by those of us who went out on our own. The lines are being drawn by supporters of the legacy system who are terrified by what they see coming, and instead of facing it with vision, they are attempting to destroy it by any means possible. Writers, as usual, are caught in the middle. We want to make a living doing what we love, but we are being TOLD to choose a side. So let's not point fingers at writers, let's point fingers where the real problem lies.

This is disruptive technology in action. This is an old-guard system in the death throes, blaming the new system for accomplishing that which it could not achieve. We'd all love to see our books on the shelf in a bookstore, but the very essence of what a book is, is changing. We have no fault in this, but we do in how we respond to it.

Nathan,
Once again, you are the voice of reason. As an author who ended up self-publishing, I revere the traditional publishing world. I would much rather have been traditionally published. The problem I have with this whole discussion is the use of the word "choice." Many of us (especially older writers like me who write in the wrong genre) really don't have a choice. I don't have ten years to spend honing and pitching my novel. I want to write more novels. The choice was made for me, not by me.

I hope people on all sides can see that in the current environment, writers and readers have wide choices and opportunities and that's ultimately a good thing.

I love your blog. Keep up the great work.

@Jamie, there are some things about your comment that I don't follow.

How do the "lines drawn" in the DoJ suit affect you as a self-published authors? Basically the agency model was all about publishers controlling the prices of their ebooks, and the anti-DoJ argument that Turow was making is that Amazon engaged in predatory pricing practice that was in itself monopolistic behavior.

Whether you agree with that or disagree with that, I don't see how it is very relevant to self-published authors. The issues under debate don't affect your ability to set your own prices. Frankly the only argument I can see is that lower ebook prices from Big Six publishers might negatively impact self-publishers, because you've lost some of your competitive pricing advantage.

How do the Big Six's pricing strategies constitute a line drawn against you as a self-published author? I just don't see it. How are you being forced to choose sides?

And as a "legacy published" author, I would really like to know why you feel sorry for me.

This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. You do what's best for you as an author and as a businessperson and your particular set of circumstances.

All of this kumbaya sounds very nice in theory, but what I've seen repeatedly online is traditional authors bashing indie AUTHORS. Indie authors might bash publishers and the industry in general, but never other authors who've chosen to go the legacy route.

This is actually a pretty idiotic debate. 99% of all authors, good or bad, will never get published by a traditional publisher. That's a fact. Many more will have meager sales and not earn their advances. So, except for a select few, there really is no option. It's self-publishing or no publishing.

Other Lisa said: “How do the "lines drawn" in the DoJ suit affect you as a self-published authors?”
Thank you for admitting my point that the lines have been drawn. Whether it affects me directly, indirectly, or not at all, this is an illegal collusion that is damaging to all legacy-published authors, and therefore potentially to all authors, period. If it affects my friends, my colleagues, or my potential future, I have a right to care. Why are you so defensive? Do you think I shouldn’t care about what happens to other writers? Is that how you feel?

“And as a "legacy published" author, I would really like to know why you feel sorry for me.”
If you’re happy with your situation, then you have nothing to complain about and I have nothing to empathize. That must mean you’re not one of the authors I was talking about. But if you’d like to hear their stories, please see www.google.com. Or, check the websites of Dean Wesley Smith, Joe Konrath, Barry Eisler, and Kristine Kathryn Rusch. You won’t just hear their stories, but the stories of hundreds (!) of authors who are or were legacy published. And -maybe- you’ll feel sorry for them like I do.

“This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. You do what's best for you as an author and as a businessperson and your particular set of circumstances.”
I agree with you 100%. If the right agent or publisher came along, I would certainly take advantage of that situation. But when organizations that claim to represent and protect the interests of authors turn around and support an industry standard that is extremely damaging, I’ll call it what it is.

I apologize in advance. I have to do this in two comments. I tried to cut it down, but...well. I failed.


I’m sort of one of those hybrids. I’m trad-pubbed (one book out, another out in Sept, and releases with two publishers slated for 2014), but I’m about to release my first self-pub effort in print and digital in September. My plan is to publish novellas between traditional releases and as companions to them.

I’ve heard from other authors curious about how both types of publishing can be combined. Most are authors with experiences like mine: they're trad-pubbed but want to provide extra content to their readers and to take advantage of the extra reach the evolving publishing landscape offers. So far no one’s asked if, having dipped my toes in the water, I would consider shifting totally to self-pubbing. If they had, I’d have said absolutely not. This isn’t a judgment; it has everything to do with how I want to spend my time and what’s important to me. I can only speak to my own experience, but a few of my reasons for not wanting to give up my publishers are:

1) I don’t want to do everything myself. The last two months of semi-consistent blogging and outreach have just about killed me. I hate it. I want to be writing, not talking to people about my writing. I do have to do some of that for my trad-pubbed books, but I’m adding my voice to a small chorus of other voices, not shouting alone into a void.
2) Every book I’ve written has gotten better thanks to being put through the wringer that is the publishing process. I have a crit group and beta-readers that I trust, but even after they’ve whipped a ms into better shape, running the gauntlet of my agent and my editor and the five other assorted people who make me revise a book before publication makes the ms better on a whole other level. Maybe not every author needs this process, but I do. I am—no lie—TERRIFIED that the ms I’m publishing is going to betray the absence of all those extra sets of eyes. I’ve hired an editor and a copyeditor, but I’m still terrified.
3) Having a print copy of the book in stores around the country is important to me. Books as objects are precious to me. This isn’t fear of technology; I’m married to a hacker-turned-systems administrator and I know my way around the tech world, but digitally it isn’t how I like to read. My trad-pubbed books are beautiful objects. So far, they’ve all been gorgeously illustrated, too, which I could never have afforded. I can only afford to get the same illustrator for the novella's cover (which I wanted to do because it's related to the bks she illustrated) because she has become a friend and believes heartily in the project. She’s basically donating her time, and if she hadn’t already fallen in love with the characters and the world, I don’t think she would’ve had any motivation to do that.

I don’t want to give any of that up. And I didn’t mention advances in the list above. Would I like to have six-figure deals from my publishers? Well…I don’t know. With the advances I get, I know I’ll earn out and the book will stay in print. So to those who say a huge advance would be the only reason to go to a publisher—that's valid, if either you know your book will earn out that advance or you don’t care if it stays in print or not.

Now, the flip side, for 2/2. I should just have written a blog post in reply.


I’m not blind to the opportunities of self-pub. Here’s why, having started, I will continue to self-pub companion pieces:

1) I can continually offer readers more content. When I get an email from a kid asking if I’ll write more about a particular character, if the idea catches me I can run with it and not worry about whether or not a publisher thinks there’s enough of a market for it to justify the costs. I can tailor my content more directly to my audience’s wishes.
2) I can make risky choices. In one of my 2014 titles, the story hinges around a book of local folklore, so the companion novella will be the folklore book itself. My publisher isn’t likely to want to publish it, and I perfectly understand why. But I can do it myself, and I think readers will love it.
3) I can move quickly. I’d been kicking this idea around for a while, but I only got the idea for the 1st story, The Kairos Mechanism, in February. By April it was written and I had a budget; as of a wk ago it was funded on Kickstarter (and it’s still raising money), and it’ll be ready to go right on schedule in September.
4) I can do innovative things that involve readers directly (for instance, Kairos has a digital reader-illustrated edition). And I can choose increased reach and finding new readers over income and offer the novella free, if I want.

I didn’t mention higher royalties there because I’d write even if I made no money at it. That was my lifestyle for 15 yrs; I worked a string of full-time retail jobs to pay the rent and wrote at night. Making the most possible from every book has never been my motivation. Seeing my book on the shelves and getting emails from 9 and 10 yr-old strangers who found my book and loved it—that motivates me.

And now you see why I need 6 rounds of editing.

@Jamie, I put "lines drawn" in quotes because I was quoting you. I am not in any way "admitting" that the DoJ case constitutes some kind of line that's being drawn between traditionally published authors and self-published authors. It's a conflict between Apple/Big Six publishers (and by extension the traditional publishing industry, though not all publishers are on board with the agency model) and Amazon -- NOT authors who are publishing through one entity or the other.

In fact there are arguments that many authors are making on the side of the Big Six. Not necessarily because the agency model is best for them in the short term (or even in the long term), but because they appreciate that diversity in publishing IS important to the longterm health of the industry and to their careers in the longterm as well, and they feel that the DoJ suit will encourage greater monopoly rather than less. But there's absolutely no reason why this means that traditionally published authors and self published authors are on opposite sides of some battle line.

You're reading Konrath et al, and while I know he provides good information he also has a considerable axe to grind. How many traditionally published authors do you personally know who have been literally ripped off? I'm not talking about having complaints with how the publishing industry is structured, because you will hear plenty of those (I have my own list). But how many traditionally published authors have you asked if they would prefer to abandon their publisher and only self-publish?

(I talked about the cases I personally know of that I feel constitute "rip-off" on the earlier thread. None were with Big Six publishers, FWIW)

Are there traditionally published authors who are no longer interested in that and want to go it completely on their own? Yes. But the great majority of authors I know would not choose to quit their traditional publishing career, in spite of their complaints about the industry.

You're fighting for a group of authors who don't necessarily agree with your reasons for battle or your battle plan. And this is the thing that Nathan was writing about in his post and elaborating upon in his comments.

So this will probably sound like I'm up on a high horse, sorry, but Lisa, you may not agree with Jaime, but she also clearly doesn't agree with you. You both feel strongly, but I wonder if instead of arguing, maybe you could each try to understand the other person's viewpoint. Otherwise, it tends to go around in circles.

Again, I don't mean to sound 'holier than thou', but in terms of the spirit of the post. Sorry.

In terms of the DOJ suit, my thoughts: many self-publishers have as much of a stake in Amazon as traditionally published authors have in traditional publishing. So, I think the DOJ suit affects them directly.

I'd like to add one more thing about why self-publishers are reaching out to traditionally published authors. It may not always be in the best tone, because some people are angry, but there is a reason besides just venting feelings.

It's called collective bargaining power.

The more authors protest the conditions and the contracts of traditional publishing, the more publishers may feel they need to change. That would benefit every author.

"Otherwise, it tends to go around in circles".

I should mention that, of course, I know this from personal experience. I pitch it with the best of them. Obviously, I've did this two days ago with you, Lisa.

But I'm working on my communication skills, and trying to figure out how to PERSUADE, rather than just take a stand. That's my new goal.

@ Lisa, I'm not sure where you got the idea that our philosophies are at odds or that I'm "fighting" with one group or another. I'm glad you're traditionally published and that it has made you happy. I don't suggest that any one path will work for everyone. I'm thrilled that I've been able to make a career on my own when other options failed me. This is a thing to celebrate IMHO. Things are getting better for authors, not worse.

I said that the author's guild does not appear to be representing the interests of its clients when it vocally supports a system that damages those clients. In throwing its weight behind this corrupt and illegal price-fixing, the guild has proven everything I've just stated. Pretending the problem isn't there is like pretending we haven't been eating, drinking, and breathing radiation from Japan for the last year. The problem is still there. People who defend a corrupt and illegal status quo are usually somehow profiting from it. I empathize with those writers who've had their careers damaged in one way or another and you should as well, although I've yet to hear you say that you do.

I'm not a member of the guild and after what I've seen this year I wouldn't join if I could. You can sensationalize that into some sort of battle-royal between Indie and legacy authors if you want, but the truth is that its just another example of a corrupted good ol' boy system. That's where the line has been drawn, and at this point it's pretty hard not to see it.

And the premise that this is about diversity in publishing is just plain silly. There's more diversity in publishing today than at any other point in history. And that "diversity" wasn't nearly so important when two or three big corporations were running thousands of bookstores and small publishers out of business. Diversity didn't become important to the good ol' boys until they ended up on their own chopping block.

See, this I where arguments derail - when people aren't acknowledging that the other side may have a valid perspective they just happen to disagree with. I don't even agree with the Authors' Guild stance, but the reason they believe what they believe is not because they are corrupt demons, but because they believe the agency model has fostered competition in the book marketplace, which they believe is good for authors. I don't think anyone supports collusion, but there are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people who believe the DOJ's cure may be worse for the book world.

I'm not much interested in hosting a discussion that does not treat the other side's arguments in good faith, and that goes for both sides. So let's elevate this discussion if it is going to continue.

Actually, the Department of Justice found Amazon to have gone above and beyond in following the law and actually held Amazon up as an example of legal business practice. Like it or not, the law is designed to protect the consumer, NOT to protect the special interest group inside an organization, no matter how much people inside the organization love their organization and want it to succeed. The law states that stores are allowed to discount prices, but not to the point where the business will be deprived of a certain amount of profit. When Amazon first decided to lower prices of the Big Six’s eBooks to $9.99 each (much higher than the less expensive eBooks on Amazon, by the way) it also volunteered to make up any lost money on each and every eBook that the Big Six had originally priced higher and give that money to the Big Six. That is awesome for consumers and that’s who the law is designed to protect. We’re actually debating in this country whether or not the laws should be changed, so that the oligarchy rather than the average citizen should be protected, but right now most of our laws protect the consumer. The way that free market capitalism has been practiced in recent years is that competition forces businesses to modernize and change in order to keep up with changing times. The Big Six have enough money to enter the digital world and compete; no one’s stopping them.

I find it interesting that many of the same arguments used against the DOJ decision and Amazon are very similar to those used by canal owners against the railroads when the first railroads were built in the United States. The canal owners were threatened by modernization and they saw the railroads as behaving immorally by expanding the railroad system. Thank goodness for the laws that gave us railroads or we’d still be traveling by canal.

Nathan said, "I don't think anyone supports collusion, but there are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people who believe the DOJ's cure may be worse for the book world."

Wait. The DOJ is simply enforcing the law. You're saying that, if the DOJ's cure is bad for the book world, then it shouldn't enforce the law? Since enforcing the law is what the DOJ does, I don't know any other way to interpret what you're saying. And when five of the six major publishers and Apple met together to fix prices, we shouldn't call that collusion? What should the DOJ call it then? I'm seriously asking these questions. There are a lot of sane, smart, reasonable people in the banking world, too, but laws have been broken there as well.

anon-

The DOJ should absolutely enforce the law. But there are a wide range of outcomes for a possible settlement.

Also you mention banking - the DOJ hasn't exactly run hog wild looking for illegality there. None of this is totally cut and dry.

Well, this is frustrating.

A couple of points, mostly to reiterate.

1. People are making generalizations and characterizations of the publishing industry that do not match my own experience or the experience of most authors I know who are in it.

2. In terms of the DoJ case, many authors question its merits and whether it is good for the industry as a whole.

I actually am an agnostic about the DoJ case. I'm not a legal expert, and I'm not a publishing industry expert, but I try to stay informed. I think at this point, regardless of how it's ultimately settled, the agency model is dead and the business moves on. Whether it bought enough time to foster the competition that those in favor of it claimed it would, we'll just have to see.

It's my understanding that some legal experts question the merits of the government's case and whether it would hold up court. We'll see what happens if/when Penguin continues to hold out, I guess.

What I am not saying that everything is fine and dandy, because it's not. Many authors have a lot of complaints, and big ones at that. Unfortunately we're not talking about those.

What I am hearing here is, "the industry is totally corrupt, it rips off authors, and we'd all be a lot better off if it completely collapsed."

I feel like I'm being labeled an apologist for corruption simply for trying to lay out the situation as I see it.

There are several other points here I'd like to address.

First, the interests of consumers and the interests of authors are not necessarily the same. If your overriding concern is lower prices, at least admit that this doesn't necessarily help authors.

Second, speaking of low prices, let's take as an example a company like Walmart. I forget the factoid now, but Walmart has more economic power than a majority of the world's countries. How has Walmart used that power? Yes, it's brought us low prices. It's also driven under many small businesses that cannot compete with its scale, it's depressed wages, it has placed burdens on the surrounding community because many of its workers don't have health insurance and have to reply on public resources. Here is a Pulitzer prize winning series from the LA Times about "the Walmart Effect" if you are interested.

It is not at all clear that low prices override everything else when it comes to the best interest of consumers; in fact I think it's safe to say that they do not.

Mira, FWIW, I'm strongly pro-union. I'm not sure how an author's union would work, though people definitely talk about it. It would probably have to be something like SAG or the WGA, where you cross a certain income threshold to be eligible.

OtherLisa,

No way will I ever admit that lower prices do not help authors. I know MANY, MANY, MANY authors who have benefited tremendously by Amazon allowing us, the writers, to choose when to lower and when to raise our prices.

And Walmart is a whole different kettle of fish, an entirely different business model than Amazon. Walmart saves money by selling products made by slaves in Third World countries and crushing unions in the United States. Last time I checked, Amazon wasn't selling books made by slaves in Third World countries. Rather, Amazon entered the digital age at exactly the same time that customers wanted eBooks. Going even beyond that, Amazon recently purchased robots that can work side by side with humans to modernize the packaging of paper books and other items for shipment. Jeff Bezos has also started Blue Origin, his own company for going into outer space. He's embracing technology and helping to move the world forward. Interestingly, NASA is helping rather than fighting the private rocketship companies, as the writing is on the wall that outer space exploration will be changing from government-funded to privately funded. The extreme cooperation between NASA and private space enterprise was displayed a few days ago when NASA assisted SpaceX's Dragon capsule dock at the International Space Station. That was incredibly awesome, and offered a glimpse into our quickly advancing world!

OtherLisa,

Thinking about this further, I should add that I believe what’s happening to the book industry is very similar to what happened to the music industry. The companies that digitized music and brought prices way down were the companies that gave modern consumers what they wanted. I’m certainly thrilled that I don’t have to deal with cumbersome and expensive vinyl record albums in order to listen to music, but I do understand that the modernization of the music industry was difficult for those inside that industry as changes were made.

Nathan, yeah, unfortunately hardly anyone understood the complex ways in which derivatives work, so some of the top bank guys were actually hired by the government to try to straighten out the mess rather than tried in court. Since very few people are privy to what went on behind closed doors, we don't know exactly why these decisions were made, although it was probably at least partially an attempt to save the world markets from completely collapsing. Collusion is a much more simple legal case, although most of the publishers settled out of court and a bunch of emails were illegally deleted, so we'll probably never know what happened there either.

Once again you are the clarion call to reason amidst chaos.

Thank you. LOVE this.

bru

Thanks for posting this, Nathan. It's good to see a former agent saying that self-publishing isn't the first step on a road to nowhere. I'm particularly happy that you mentioned experimenting because that is honestly one of the main reasons I'm considering self-publishing one of my books (lots of agent nibbles, but no bites). I'm curious as to how it might do, but was worried that by doing so other agents/editors would look down on me for that. Like, "Oh, you couldn't get published in the traditional way so that must mean you're no good" or just something like that, you know? Basically what you said about the conceptions surrounding it.

So yeah, maybe I will give it a go as an experiment...

I don't want to feel any bitterness towards traditional publishing houses. They are one avenue (an increasingly smaller avenue) for getting my work to the reader and I'll take any avenue I can get.
As far as some bitter divide between self-publishing and traditional publishing...

They Started It Man!

For years they made fun of us and called us names,
They said we would stink up literature,
they said they decided what real books were,

*sniffs back tears from unrelated childhood memories*

Once, *sniff* ...three or four of the big guys took my friend's manuscript on the playground and were tossing it around playing keep away...

*pausing to swallow the pain*

They didn't want to publish it, they just didn't want him to have it...

They would...

*dabbing away a tear of loneliness*

...have these big parties where they would talk about us and not invite us...
They would give us wedgies and noogies and wouldn't let us into their fancy bookstores...

But, it's okay. We all have to work together and I'm not bitter.

*deep breath*

Anyway, this is my new friend, Amazon, he's bigger than than any of those guys!
And during recess, for 60% less milk money, he will take their readers and their writers so nobody will go to their big fancy bookstores!
So there! Who's getting the wedgies now! Huh! How's it feel?! Doesn't feel very good! Does it!?!
...
uh...
oops...

I guess I pretty much just blew it with any traditional publishers out there....

Marilyn, I always love when you contribute, you are very informed!

Lisa, I'd love, love, love to see a writer's union. Seems like it's way overdue.

I wonder how one would form that?

While getting books to readers is the name of the game, the method by which authors are paid is the high-stakes stand-off b/w traditional and self-publishing. Literary "value" doesn't seem to have much say, given that genre fiction -- by definition "weak" literature -- tops best seller charts. But for all the variety of interests readers express through their purchases, the "how" and "how much" has, in many ways, been finally put into the hands of the writers via the self-publishing paradigm.

so true! And that's why I love that we have so many choices. There is only the path that is right for you.

True for life, but never more true for publishing.

Is there a "here there be dragons," on that map?

Sad to see you had to turn WV back on. You must be too popular to avoid enough spam.

Amen!

The dragons may be lurking somewhere between a FedEx Office and the trunk of a car.

This is so nice to read. Going with your gut is often underrated.

Awesome post. So very true. My crazy journey of self-publishing this past year ended up getting me a new day job at a publishing company in Minneapolis. I followed my gut, worked like crazy to publish well, and it has now opened all new doors for me. Do what feels right, because it feels right for a reason!

I will find success if it doesn't find me first.

I wanted the be traditionally published, but didn't want to waste years searching for an agent, so I found a publisher instead. Now my dream will come true this October when my book is finally (traditionally) published. There's no perfect path for everyone. Just the perfect one for YOU!

The research is key, and it's a good idea to keep researching (read that: keep up with) other strategies even if you've already adopted one.

This is so true. I would add to be especially wary of those who use inflammatory language and scare tactics to make their point.

I agree. You have to do what's best for you.

You'll have to explain this to me, "There's only one person who knows what's best for your manuscript: You."

Why would I know better what is good for my manuscript than someone with twenty years of experience in editing or marketing?

Are experts of no value? FYI, I'm no expert in any of this.

anon-

Experts are like coaches - they can steer you in the right direction and draw up the plays but it's up to the players to decide what to do on the court.

I'm fairly new to your blog and can't say thank you enough for the things you post. The information is invaluable.
Are you no longer working as an agent?

A published author told me that you are not a professional writer until a publisher publishes your book. Self-publishing does not count. What do you all think about this?

Amen to that!

That's why it is important to take anything you read on the Internet with a grain of salt. I've seen many of the self-appointed watchdog groups--Absolute Write an Preditors and Editors, for example--keep trying to preserve the old-style publishing system by badmouthing those in the independent publishing movement. They also allow their sycophants to post lies about various companies and editors. Even some of the moderators have started to post half-truths, all in an attempt to preserve a publishing monopoly that serves their own interests. Good for you, Nathan. Maybe you should run for president.

You're right as usual.

There are many ways to get published now.

And yet, this has not solve the problem for the writer. Only moved it to further

Now, the problem is not getting published but reaching your readers.

The writer's work is not anymore to convince an editor to publish his/her book, but to convince the public to read it.

Nice! As usual, you're the voice of reason! :)

So true. Time Traveler's Wife was originally published with a small press. A writer should never see one way as the only way.

Absolutely true, Nathan. There are far too many variables at play for any two books to be the same. For instance, I know genre played a big role in my self-publishing success. Jane Austen fans are used to reading online fanfiction, so there's very little stigma attached to self-publishing. That's not true for every reader base.

Great post. You're right. Everyone has their own path.

This is especially true since so many factors are out of your control. So, you have to trust and walk the path that feels best to you, listen and learn, and see where it all leads you.

Although - I will say there is one essential if you want to be successful in terms of publication: you need to write a really good book.

Wise words. I was so confused. And zig-zagged all over the place. There's that tug to be a published author RIGHT NOW, and through self-publishing you can. Someone told me that my manuscript could get picked up by a publisher and I should go the traditional route. I did traditional. An agent, just yesterday, agreed to represent my mss. Yay!

Such a great post. I wish more people felt the way you do about finding your own way and what is right for you. There are still so many who look down on self-published authors. Thanks

"There's only one person who knows what's best for your manuscript: you."

Hmm. Surely that's only true if the "you" in question has deep experience of traditional publishing, digital publishing, POD self-publishing - indeed, everything short of town crying.

It is true that the only person who gets to decide what happens to the manuscript is its author - that's part of your authorial moral rights. But I don't assume I always know best; I try to listen to the advice of people in different fields, who surely are in a better position than I am to judge effective marketing, publishing and publicity.

You said this so well. And it's so true.

I often read this blog, but never comment, until now, that is. That last line is going into my favorite quotes file. Thank you!

"There's no map to finding success with books. There's just a constant journey."

Well said, Nathan! Thank you for the reminder.

The best advice I think I've ever seen you give. And Mira has a fair point as well: if you want to be proud of publication, no matter how it happens, it has to be a really good book.

I've probably mentioned it before (:)), but the names and number of "literary" figures who would not have found publication without either willing and generous friends, or their own persistence, is pretty large.

I would argue--of course, right?--that writers also need to really get past the idea that either sales figures or a big name publisher means, by some grace, that their book, or someone else's, is "good," or even "great."

As with many things, promotion seems to be key to sales; promotion, or even skill at promotion, does not automatically mean something has literary, artistic, or other merit. It just means someone has convinced others that it does.

Bransford:

When I found the best advice for a writer three years ago, I didn't just read your back in the day, daily posts, I studied some.

Well put about an author not feeling fenced in. Doesn't your attitude for a writer, not necessarily of books, mirror that of an author?

My former and especially current blogs are seeing the metaphorical light (now that I have sponsor interest.) So there's room for us all to be wary! Yes?

http://twincull.blogspot.com/

Sheila!

Thanks for posting this Nathan. It's something that bears repeating from time to time as it is easy to get lost in all the advice flying at us from every direction.

So true that there are new avenues available now.

Do your research, follow your gut, figure out what works best for you. And if the first thing doesn't work try something else. And if that doesn't work try a third way.

Add to this getting input from a really good team. That's what the best agents and traditional publishers offer. An indie author, however, can put together his own team with a bit of care and strategic planning. Once in place, it's invaluable.

That's good advice for life as well as publishing, Nathan.

Basically, we have to decide what feels comfortable to us at each point. Look around, be aware of the pitfalls and believe in yourself. Tenacity helps.

Thank you for this, Nathan. We are blessed to live in a time when writers have so many choices. It's odd that people are in such a rush to limit them again.

Thanks for the advice!!

Love this. Thank you.