Great post. I'd love to read a follow-up article on your thoughts around the self-publishing industry on the 100th anniversary of Sylvia Beach's wise move to privately publish James Joyce.
Thanks! I'm not sure I'm the best person to write about self-publishing, since I have never done it and most of the authors I know are traditionally published. The Joyce thing is maybe more micro-publishing than self publishing? Maybe I could invite a guest post on self publishing or micro publishing by someone who knows more about it than I do.
Ah yes, good point re: Joyce and micro-publishing versus self-publishing ... that could be an interesting aspect to the guest article as well, the pros and cons of both. In any case, appreciate the words. As a fiction writer here in Paris, I'm forever curious about how best to put words out into the world in a way that honors some of those more subversive models of yore
From everything I've read of self-publishing - it's much *less* subversive. It's essentially
a new pulp era. Writers have to publish multiple times a year - some publish more than once a month. (Those books are a bit shorter than trad, say 50,000 words, so it's not quite as intense as it sounds). It favours very commercial genres - romance, military scifi, thrillers. I guess what we used to call airport fiction.
And the marketing required to get any traction is intense. For example, writers build up a "team" of first-day reviewers (not fake, genuine fans of the writers, but co-ordinated and organised) because getting above a quantum of early reviews is crucial for the Amazon algorithm. They put tonnes of keywords in their book titles (that's why so many books on Amazon have these long subtitles - at their worst called stuff like "The Sword of Truth: An enemies-to-lovers fantasy romance epic for fans of Brandon Sanderson")
You have to be more tropey and more generic and more formulaic. Partly because it's hard to churn out a book a month if you're not writing to a formula, but also because you're writing for people who know exactly what they want, and are willing to pay for a new variant on it every month.
The reason I think self-publishing TENDS to not be as "good" (I know I'm generalising here!!) is because to make a living, you have to publish at an incredible pace, and there's no time for the kind of revision and idea-fermentation you might ideally want.
Read/watch a couple of "how to become a self-published author" guides, or interviews with self-pubbed authors - it was enough to put me off the self-publishing option permanently (or at least in the current Amazon-dominated landscape). But that's me - it's a good fit for people who write fast, fun, genre novels and can be very prolific, and who don't mind the work of fan-organising and keyword research.
(None of this applies if you already have an existing audience or following that you can bring with you. Big name trad writers can self-publish their weirder works that their trad publishers aren't interested in without having to do all the stuff fully self-published authors do)
Thanks for this thoughtful response, McKinley. What you've just laid out re: self-publishing sounds terrifying, and very impossible for a writer like me who has spent the last 7 years writing and rewriting a second novel.
For some context of where my experience resides, in 2015, I published my debut novel with Inkshares, which was at the time one of the few crowdfunded publishers in the world. The premise was simple: if I could raise $10,000 in pre-orders in 3 months, they would run a 1,000 copy print run and put me on a book tour to be their flagship novelist and guinea pig. The experience was memorable, I got a 2nd (very small) print run, made very little money, and that's when I realized that I was not cut-out for the self-promotion of Twitter and Blogs and social media. All I wanted to do was get started on the next book, which is, to your point, the great challenge of not having an agent / manager. To that extent, my professional life didn't really change * at all * after publishing my first novel w/ an admittedly minuscule, crowdfunded publisher (in fact, at the time I went back to my old job as a teacher), but my lingering imposter syndrome was quelled, I was able to see my work on a bookstore bookshelf, and it allowed me to get back to what matters--doing the work. Work is work. Money comes and goes. But writing is a calling and, ultimately in my mind, a lifestyle.
Smart, and well cross-cited, Summer. Thank you. I missed the initial essays and then only was aware of the kerfuffle. Everything you say is quite grounded and true.
This is great if it’s fiction, however, most publishers want to co-create a non-fiction book and won’t be happy with a complete manuscript. A book pitch is better - what you want to write about, why you’re the one to write it, similar books in the marketplace, the competition and what will be different about yours. That type of thing. Sometimes a publisher wants to change the direction of a non-fiction book for a particular market, or they had an idea for a book and they like you so they want to work with you but they don’t want the book you propose and they propose something else instead! Just adding my experience here.
Yes, I think I did say very clearly in the post that for nonfiction you do NOT need a full manuscript (unless it is memoir), but rather you need a completed PROPOSAL. This will include an overview, a section about the author, competitive titles (or "comps"), production details, plans for promotion, chapter summaries, and at least 2-3 polished sample chapters. This is the case for the vast majority of instances, and the post is about getting one's first book contract. For some smaller niche publishers, this may not be the case, or once you have an established relationship with an editor. Or for proposed books in a series like Bloomsbury's Object Lessons series, the proposal required is somewhat shorter. But generally you'll be asked to put together between 50 and 150 pages of material. Publishers DO want to help shape the book to varying degrees, and it is understood that most books will change, either a little or a lot, from the sale of the proposal to the final manuscript. In most traditional publishing scenarios, the editor will be bidding or passing on the particular proposal and won't suggest the author write a completely different book.
(From the text: "writers who are frustrated with the fact that they have yet to publish a book should ask themselves one question: do I have a book that is ready for the marketplace? For fiction or memoir, that usually means a strong finished draft of a manuscript. For nonfiction, it’s a solid proposal and at least 2-3 chapters of polished sample material."
"Do not imply that a full manuscript or proposal exists if it does not."
Great post. I'd love to read a follow-up article on your thoughts around the self-publishing industry on the 100th anniversary of Sylvia Beach's wise move to privately publish James Joyce.
Thanks! I'm not sure I'm the best person to write about self-publishing, since I have never done it and most of the authors I know are traditionally published. The Joyce thing is maybe more micro-publishing than self publishing? Maybe I could invite a guest post on self publishing or micro publishing by someone who knows more about it than I do.
Ah yes, good point re: Joyce and micro-publishing versus self-publishing ... that could be an interesting aspect to the guest article as well, the pros and cons of both. In any case, appreciate the words. As a fiction writer here in Paris, I'm forever curious about how best to put words out into the world in a way that honors some of those more subversive models of yore
From everything I've read of self-publishing - it's much *less* subversive. It's essentially
a new pulp era. Writers have to publish multiple times a year - some publish more than once a month. (Those books are a bit shorter than trad, say 50,000 words, so it's not quite as intense as it sounds). It favours very commercial genres - romance, military scifi, thrillers. I guess what we used to call airport fiction.
And the marketing required to get any traction is intense. For example, writers build up a "team" of first-day reviewers (not fake, genuine fans of the writers, but co-ordinated and organised) because getting above a quantum of early reviews is crucial for the Amazon algorithm. They put tonnes of keywords in their book titles (that's why so many books on Amazon have these long subtitles - at their worst called stuff like "The Sword of Truth: An enemies-to-lovers fantasy romance epic for fans of Brandon Sanderson")
You have to be more tropey and more generic and more formulaic. Partly because it's hard to churn out a book a month if you're not writing to a formula, but also because you're writing for people who know exactly what they want, and are willing to pay for a new variant on it every month.
The reason I think self-publishing TENDS to not be as "good" (I know I'm generalising here!!) is because to make a living, you have to publish at an incredible pace, and there's no time for the kind of revision and idea-fermentation you might ideally want.
Read/watch a couple of "how to become a self-published author" guides, or interviews with self-pubbed authors - it was enough to put me off the self-publishing option permanently (or at least in the current Amazon-dominated landscape). But that's me - it's a good fit for people who write fast, fun, genre novels and can be very prolific, and who don't mind the work of fan-organising and keyword research.
(None of this applies if you already have an existing audience or following that you can bring with you. Big name trad writers can self-publish their weirder works that their trad publishers aren't interested in without having to do all the stuff fully self-published authors do)
Thanks for this thoughtful response, McKinley. What you've just laid out re: self-publishing sounds terrifying, and very impossible for a writer like me who has spent the last 7 years writing and rewriting a second novel.
For some context of where my experience resides, in 2015, I published my debut novel with Inkshares, which was at the time one of the few crowdfunded publishers in the world. The premise was simple: if I could raise $10,000 in pre-orders in 3 months, they would run a 1,000 copy print run and put me on a book tour to be their flagship novelist and guinea pig. The experience was memorable, I got a 2nd (very small) print run, made very little money, and that's when I realized that I was not cut-out for the self-promotion of Twitter and Blogs and social media. All I wanted to do was get started on the next book, which is, to your point, the great challenge of not having an agent / manager. To that extent, my professional life didn't really change * at all * after publishing my first novel w/ an admittedly minuscule, crowdfunded publisher (in fact, at the time I went back to my old job as a teacher), but my lingering imposter syndrome was quelled, I was able to see my work on a bookstore bookshelf, and it allowed me to get back to what matters--doing the work. Work is work. Money comes and goes. But writing is a calling and, ultimately in my mind, a lifestyle.
Smart, and well cross-cited, Summer. Thank you. I missed the initial essays and then only was aware of the kerfuffle. Everything you say is quite grounded and true.
"All you can do is write the book you want to write." <-- daily reminder to self! Thanks, Summer!
Thank you for this! Very sane and helpful advice.
Much helpful real talk. Great post.
Thanks Max, glad you found it helpful. I wasn't entirely sure about this one.
A great piece. Thank you for this.
Thanks Robert!
This is great if it’s fiction, however, most publishers want to co-create a non-fiction book and won’t be happy with a complete manuscript. A book pitch is better - what you want to write about, why you’re the one to write it, similar books in the marketplace, the competition and what will be different about yours. That type of thing. Sometimes a publisher wants to change the direction of a non-fiction book for a particular market, or they had an idea for a book and they like you so they want to work with you but they don’t want the book you propose and they propose something else instead! Just adding my experience here.
Yes, I think I did say very clearly in the post that for nonfiction you do NOT need a full manuscript (unless it is memoir), but rather you need a completed PROPOSAL. This will include an overview, a section about the author, competitive titles (or "comps"), production details, plans for promotion, chapter summaries, and at least 2-3 polished sample chapters. This is the case for the vast majority of instances, and the post is about getting one's first book contract. For some smaller niche publishers, this may not be the case, or once you have an established relationship with an editor. Or for proposed books in a series like Bloomsbury's Object Lessons series, the proposal required is somewhat shorter. But generally you'll be asked to put together between 50 and 150 pages of material. Publishers DO want to help shape the book to varying degrees, and it is understood that most books will change, either a little or a lot, from the sale of the proposal to the final manuscript. In most traditional publishing scenarios, the editor will be bidding or passing on the particular proposal and won't suggest the author write a completely different book.
(From the text: "writers who are frustrated with the fact that they have yet to publish a book should ask themselves one question: do I have a book that is ready for the marketplace? For fiction or memoir, that usually means a strong finished draft of a manuscript. For nonfiction, it’s a solid proposal and at least 2-3 chapters of polished sample material."
"Do not imply that a full manuscript or proposal exists if it does not."
etc.)