When Should I Self-Publish?

Several times a week, I get emails from newbie writers seeking information or commenting on posts.

I received two emails today on the same subject, prompting this blog. Both talked about self-publishing. One complained about something I'd said on the Internet, which she'd interpreted as a condemnation of all self-publishing. The other just asked for advice while he readied his proposal to be submitted to a subsidy press (vanity press).

Let me address the complaint. Far from being opposed to self-publishing, I actually look forward to the day when it makes more financial sense for writers to self-publish than to go through a traditional publisher. However, that day has not yet come.

The reason that day has not yet arrived is NOT due to a lack of technology. The technology exists today to print books economically. It is called POD (print-on-demand). This digital printing process makes it possible to print as few as one or two books or as many as thousands in a single print run.

The problem is not in the printing. The problem comes up after the printing: in the marketing/selling of the book.

Yes, we have Amazon and e-Bay through which writers can sell their books. You can also create your own website. However, without major buzz, it is unlikely that people will flock to any of these sites in search of your book. More importantly, when you self-publish, you will not have access to the venues through which most new releases find homes: Libraries and retail outlets like Wal-Mart or Barnes & Noble.

There are tons of vanity presses out there offering to print and market your books. They are scams. They will overcharge for the printing and not deliver on the marketing. Sure, they might display your book for a week in a small bookstore thousands of miles from your home (for which you will pay the bookstore dearly). That's not marketing.

Having said all that, let me also say that I can think of five reasons for a writer to go the self-published route. The first three are dictated by the personal needs of the writer; the other two are legitimate professional reasons:

1) Impatience: A writer who is so anxious to hold a bound volume of his/her work that s/he cannot bear to go through the laborious process of seeking representation by an agent or submitting to traditional publishers. The writer is willing to pay to be able to say, "I'm a published writer."
2) Artistic Control: A writer who is unwilling to surrender editorial control of his/her work or who refuses to accept feedback on possible changes. This frequently--although not always--involves a 200K-word manuscript that cries out for editing while the writer steadfastly refuses to consider pruning a single word.
3) Sentiment: A writer who has produced a work that is not intended for commercial consumption. An example might be a family history, which the writer wishes to share with her loved ones.
4) Niche Market: The writer has produced a work on a subject that is not commercially viable for a traditional publisher. There is a market for this work, but it is very limited in size or scope. This frequently involves academic works in some arcane subject.
5) Cross-Genre: The writer has produced a work that traditional publishers simply do not know how to market. This is usually a work that crosses multiple genres.

All of the above are legitimate reasons to seek self-publishing. The common thread running through the list is that--in the vast majority of cases--none of these books will likely be of interest to a traditional publisher.

None of these books is likely to return a profit either. In the case of the impatient writer or the writer unwilling to relinquish artistic control, the writers are trying to circumvent the traditional process through self-publishing rather than concentrating on making their books commercially viable.

In the case of the sentimental work, the writer's intent was never to return a profit. Therefore, self-publishing makes perfect sense. However, the writer would be better served to find a printing operation as opposed to a setup that advertises itself as a subsidy press or publisher. These self-professed "publishers" will charge far more for the same services than an ordinary printer would.

In the case of the niche book or the cross-genre novel, the writers know ahead of time that they face an uphill battle. While there is a market for their works, the entire effort of marketing the books will rest on the writers' shoulders. If the niche writer is well connected to his market, he may make a profit through a lot of sweat equity (self-promotion and selling out of his car trunk).

The cross-genre writer is an interesting character. I am thinking here of Jaid Black and M.J. Rose. Both women were writing in the new cross genre of erotic romance before anyone had a term for erotic romance. They both opted for self-publishing. Jaid Black founded her own publishing house, Ellora's Cave, while M.J. Rose (who had extensive experience in marketing) set about to develop her own publicity campaign. Both women have been very successful in creating a genre and in forcing traditional publishing to accept and acknowledge that new genre.

Caveat: Most writers who believe they have created a new genre are simply so lacking in focus that their manuscripts are all over the map--this is very different from creating a new and distinct genre.

So, you see, I am not opposed to self-publishing. I just believe that the writer must know exactly which of the five reasons apply to her. AND, she must be prepared to lose money if she chooses to go that route.

If you want to read other posts on this subject see my blogs for 3/23/06, 3/24/06 and 5/1/06.

When Self-Publishing Is a Viable Alternative

In line with my new policy for weekends when I'm facing a deadline, I'm running old posts you may not have seen. This post first ran on 6/20/06.

Several times a week, I get emails from newbie writers seeking information or commenting on posts.

I received two emails today on the same subject, prompting this blog. Both talked about self-publishing. One complained about something I'd said on the Internet, which she'd interpreted as a condemnation of all self-publishing. The other just asked for advice while he readied his proposal to be submitted to a subsidy press.

Let me address the complaint. Far from being opposed to self-publishing, I actually look forward to the day when it makes more financial sense for writers to self-publish than to go through a traditional publisher. However, that day has not yet come.

The reason that day has not yet arrived is NOT due to a lack of technology. The technology exists today to print books economically. It is called POD (print-on-demand). This digital printing process makes it possible to print as few as one or two books or as many as thousands in a single print run.

The problem is not in the printing. The problem comes up after the printing: in the marketing/selling of the book.

Yes, we have Amazon and e-Bay through which writers can sell their books. You can also create your own website. However, without major buzz, it is unlikely that people will flock to these sites in search of your book. More importantly, when you self-publish, you will not have access to the venues through which most new releases find homes: Libraries and retail outlets like Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart.

There are tons of vanity presses out there offering to print and market your books. They are scams. They will overcharge for the printing and not deliver on the marketing. Sure, they might display your book for a week in a small bookstore thousands of miles from your home (for which you will pay the bookstore dearly). That's not marketing.

Having said all that, let me also say that I can think of five reasons for a writer to go the self-published route. The first three are dictated by the personal needs of the writer; the other two are legitimate professional reasons:

1) Impatience: A writer who is so anxious to hold a bound volume of his/her work that s/he cannot bear to go through the laborious process of seeking representation by an agent or submitting to traditional publishers. The writer is willing to pay to be able to say, "I'm published."

2) Artistic Control: A writer who is unwilling to surrender editorial control of his/her work or who refuses to accept feedback on possible changes. This frequently--although not always--involves a 200K-word manuscript that cries out for editing while the writer steadfastly refuses to consider pruning a single word.

3) Sentiment: A writer who has produced a work that is not intended for commercial consumption. An example might be a family history, which the writer wishes to share with her loved ones.

4) Niche Market: The writer has produced a work on a subject that is not commercially viable for a traditional publisher. There is a market for this work, but it is very limited in size or scope. This frequently involves academic works in some arcane subject.

Note: In the two years since I wrote this post, I've expanded my definition of this item. If a non-fiction writer has a ready-made market for his/her work, self-publishing may make a lot of sense. The Internet and social networking has created an environment where a writer can connect with people who share his/her interests. It is possible that the writer would be better served to self-publish and then promote that book to these groups with which s/he is already connected. He could end up keeping a larger percentage of the profits than he would if he went through the normal publishing channels.

5) Cross-Genre: The writer has produced a work that traditional publishers simply do not know how to market. This is usually a work that crosses multiple genres, making it a new genre.

All of the above are legitimate reasons to seek self-publishing. The common thread running through the list is that--in the vast majority of cases--most of these books will not likely be of interest to a traditional publisher.

Most of these books (with the exception of the niche market) is unlikely to return a profit either. In the case of the impatient writer or the writer unwilling to relinquish artistic control, the writers are trying to circumvent the traditional process through self-publishing rather than concentrating on making their books commercially viable.

In the case of the sentimental work, the writer's intent was never to return a profit. Therefore, self-publishing makes perfect sense. However, the writer would be better served to find a printing operation as opposed to a setup that advertises itself as a subsidy press or publisher. These self-professed "publishers" will charge far more for the same services than an ordinary printer would.

In the case of the niche book or the cross-genre novel, the writers know ahead of time that they face an uphill battle. While there is a market for their works, the entire effort of marketing the books will rest on the writers' shoulders. If the niche writer is well connected to his market, he may make a profit through a lot of sweat equity (self-promotion and selling out of his car trunk).

The cross-genre writer is an interesting character. I am thinking here of Jaid Black and M.J. Rose. Both women were writing in the new cross genre of erotic romance before anyone had a term for erotic romance. They both opted for self-publishing. Jaid Black founded her own publishing house, Ellora's Cave, while M.J. Rose (who had extensive experience in marketing) set about to develop her own publicity campaign. Both women have been very successful in creating a genre and in forcing traditional publishing to accept and acknowledge that new genre.

Caveat: Most writers who believe they have created a new genre are simply so lacking in focus that their manuscripts are all over the map--this is very different from creating a new and distinct genre.

So, you see, I am not opposed to self-publishing. I just believe that the writer must know exactly which of the five reasons apply to him/her. AND, s/he must be prepared to lose money if she chooses to go that route.

Revisiting the Barbara Bauer Lawsuit

Someone on one of my writer loops brought up the Barbara Bauer lawsuit against Preditors & Editors, which reminded me that it has been six months since I've revisited that issue. So tonight I thought we'd take a trip down memory lane.

First, a quick recap:

It started back in March, 2006 when Absolute Write, a website for writers, posted a list of what they called the 20 Worst Agents.

Complaints from the named agents caused the web server for Absolute Write to shut the site down. That was enough to cause all the prominent writer websites to begin publishing the list so that everywhere you looked online you could find it.

Absolute Write had to find another server. The Writer Beware website accepted the job of keeping the list of 20 Worst Agents updated. You can find it here.

Of course, the fabulous Miss Snark (MS) couldn't resist poking her stiletto heel into the controversy. She posted the list on 3/17/06.

Most of the people listed on the worst agent website had the good sense to keep their mouths shut or to change their agencies' names rather than prolong the publicity. However, there was one agent who decided to go after EVERYONE who called her "a worst agent." She threatened Absolute Write and, on 5/24/2006, Miss Snark went after her, saying:

"Barbara Bauer is not a literary agent. Barbara Bauer is a scam artist. And a very very stupid one. Here's the scoop:

"Barbara Bauer phoned the woman who runs the web hosting for Absolute Write wherein Barbara Bauer was listed as one of the 20 Worst Agents (a list I was happy to publish as well) and sounded scary enough that the site host panicked and pulled the plug.

"In the past Barbara Bauer, one of the 20 Worst Agents, tried to get Teresa Nielsen Hayden fired for 'libeling her on the Making Light website'.

"Like I said: stupid. It's not libel when you're telling the truth.

"Let me say this again in no uncertain terms: Barbara Bauer is not a reputable literary agent. She is a scam artist.

"Strong words? You bet. Wanna come get me Barb? Come on over. Let's compare sales."

Of course, from that moment on, every chance she got, Miss Snark would make a snarky comment about "Babs." It became a running thread on MS's blog. And it was hugely responsible for making MS well known in the writer community.

And even in the face of growing negative publicity, Bauer still would not back down. She sent threatening letters to everyone who made snarky comments about her on their blogs or websites. A lot of people backed down. A lot of people didn't.

On 9/20/07, Bauer filed a civil lawsuit against 17 defendants (with several joint names) in U.S. District Court (federal court) in New Jersey. The defendants included some of the best known bloggers in the writing community and Wikimedia, the non-profit that runs Wikipedia. The complaint also included as a defendant: "Miss Snark, The Literary Agent, ('Snark') is a fictitious name used on a blog."

Bauer and her attorneys were trying very hard to find Miss Snark's real name. The writer community shut down, protecting her name.

Bauer filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County on 1/31/08, moving the case from federal to state court. There were other differences in the second lawsuit. Bauer added three additional defendants and changed her complaint against Miss Snark to list Brian Hill and Dee Power, claiming that they were behind the Miss Snark blog.

In my blog, I said:

There has been a huge amount of speculation as to the identity of Miss Snark. Many writers believe they know her true identity and have continued to protect that name more than a year after the blog ceased operations. None of the writers I know believes that Hill and Power were behind Miss Snark.

According to Bauer's original filing, Miss Snark's blog had a server address in Scottsdale, Arizona. Hill and Power live in Fountain Hills, Arizona, a suburb northeast of Scottsdale.

According to Wikipedia, Fountain Hills has a population of 24,669 and was the eighth fastest-growing city in Arizona between the 1990 and 2000 census.

I'm curious as to why Bauer zeroed in on Hill and Power. Because they were writers living within twenty miles of Scottsdale? Surely not!

Everyone knew they weren't MS. In July, 2008, the judge dismissed the cases against Hill and Power.

That same month, the judge also dismissed the case against Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that runs Wikipedia.

I did a pair of posts on my blog in July on the 8th here and on the 9th here, listing all defendants, who they are, and the lawsuit's status (17 original defendants, raised to 20--counting Hill and Power as one--reduced to 18).

Tonight, I spent some time trying to find the status of the remaining 18 defendants.

Let's start with one of the lesser known defendants: Shweta Narayan.

This is a direct quote from the transcript of the decision:

"Bauer’s complaint alleges that Ms. Narayan published statements in November 2006, that denigrated Bauer’s reputation as a literary agent . . .

"Ms. Narayan was a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley in November 2006. For health reasons, she has withdrawn from the university, and currently lives in San Diego . . . With help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, she located volunteer counsel in New Jersey, whom she retained in May 2008 . . . "

This is a quote from her attorney's brief:

"Two years ago, in May of 2006, as a linguistics graduate student at UC Berkeley, Ms. Narayan noticed interesting linguistic behavior in an Internet chat room sponsored by a writers’ community, AbsoluteWrite.com. The chatters complained that AbsoluteWrite’s website had been shut down, apparently in response to legal threats from Bauer. Unlike the website, the chat room was not shut down, and it became a hub for the writers who had been displaced from the AbsoluteWrite website.

"Later in 2006, Ms. Narayan received a call for submissions to the CSDL conference, a small, highly specialized bi-annual academic conference on cognitive linguistics. Recalling the discourse of the chat room in May 2006, she prepared an abstract and submitted it . . . as an example of how a community under threat creates interesting and complex conceptual structures to cope with threats -- the sort of topic that CSDL attendees study . . .

"Ms. Narayan presented her talk at the conference on November 4, 2006, to an audience of about 30 to 40 people. The abstract and talk focused on what the chatters were doing, not on Bauer herself, though Bauer was mentioned briefly to contextualize the situation for linguists . . . Bauer is referenced in quoted speech by the chatters whose language is being analyzed. The abstract cited the Science Fiction Writers of America; it made no direct statements about Bauer."

The judge dismissed the case against Ms. Narayan on 10/27/08 based on "the lack of personal jurisdiction." Ms. Narayan lives in California, and Ms. Bauer filed in state court in New Jersey.

Updated Status: 17 original defendants, raised to 20--now reduced to 17

Next up: defendant Gregory Ludwig, who has described himself as an editor and an occasional writer.

According to the decision:

"Mr. Ludwig is a writer who is trying to publish books, and the plaintiff is a literary agent who places authors for publication of books. According to Mr. Ludwig, he supplied Ms. Bauer with twelve book manuscripts, none of which actually were published, and he paid a fee for those actions.

"Movant began writing blog entries pertaining to Ms. Bauer beginning on September 5, 2006 which included discussions about their past business interactions. That's not alleged to be defamatory."

Ludwig argued that he was defending Bauer. Judge Perri agreed. In his decision on 10/27/08, he found that "There was clearly no actual malice and there was not a negligent defamation as the Court views the documents, and therefore summary judgment is granted in the defendant Ludwig's favor . . ."

Updated Status: 17 original defendants, raised to 20--now reduced to 16

I'll check in on the case status again in another few months.

Red Flags For Writers

I'm very ambivalent about writing this post. The people who were taken in by this scam have suffered a lot already. However, I'm hoping they can take comfort from the fact that their experience serves as an almost textbook example of the "red flags" writers should watch for when considering a contract with an agent, editor or publisher.

I first read about the problems with Hill & Hill on Absolute Write here in mid-September. Over the last four weeks, the comment trail labeled "Hill and Hill Literary Agency" has grown to thirty-six pages. It makes for very painful reading as writers come forward to identify themselves as clients of Hill & Hill. They start out just asking questions and suggesting that there is some kind of misunderstanding. Gradually their protective wall of denial crumbles, their hope diminishes and they begin to acknowledge that they've been scammed.

Last night I saw Kate Hyde's October 14th post for the first time (Thanks, Miss Snark). Kate Hyde is a senior editor for non-fiction at Press Books (HarperCollins) in the UK. Her post on Hill & Hill can be read here. Again, writers who were scammed by Hill & Hill came forward in her comment trail. It was actually THOSE comments that prompted this post.

I won't go into the details of the scam. Reading Absolute Write and Kate's post will provide all you need to know. Suffice it to say that Christopher Hill presented himself as an agent and ripped off a bunch of writers. Some say their money has been reimbursed. However, money was not the only thing they lost. Hill stole their time, their hopes and--for many--their self confidence. He is the worst kind of predator--a vampire who battens on the unwary, feeding from psyches and gaining pleasure from controlling his victims.

While it is never appropriate to blame the victims, when reading their emails, you can see how they were duped. Almost all of them talk about red flags they ignored.

Hindsight is, of course, 20/20. The purpose of this post is to list some of those red flags. There were lots.

1) Everything you read on the Internet is not gospel. As an example, anyone can post to Wikipedia. It takes a while for the overseers there to catch and edit the false entries.

If you are going to search for information, it is up to you to be an informed consumer. I've said this before. Scam artists plant people in loops and chat rooms to talk up their services. Sometimes the scam artist himself acts as a sock puppet, using a pseudonym to praise his own operation. A common ploy is to pretend to be a writer and give rave reviews to a site that is really run by a rip-off artist.

Ads in magazines should always be viewed with suspicion. Ads are paid for. Most magazines DO NOT screen for the validity of the ad; they just take the money and run the ad. Just because you see it in Writers Digest or Publishers Weekly does not mean it's legitimate.

You should ALWAYS check Preditors and Editors and Writer Beware. You should ALWAYS Google for information on any recommendation you receive. Google it in several ways. Google it first with the word "complaint" in the search string. Google again with just the name of the agency. Google again with just the name of the agent.

2) Examine the agent, editor or publisher's website carefully. Look for obvious problems. Poor grammar, poor spelling, a lack of professional voice--all of these are warning signs. If the agent, editor or publisher is claiming to be a legitimate member of an industry in which words are her business, she should be able to write a coherent, error-free sentence.

3) Examine the website's claims. At a minimum, they should list the writers or the books they represent. But don't stop there. I recently received an email from a newbie asking about an "agent." He hadn't found anything alarming in a Google search; actually there was very little at all on the Internet about this agent beyond her website address. She wasn't listed on any of the warning sites either. I went directly to the site, looked up the authors listed and did a search on each of their books. ALL were printed by vanity presses or a print-on-demand press like Lulu. No one needs an agent to self-publish. That's a big red flag.

4) If you don't subscribe to Publishers Marketplace (PM), make friends with someone who does. A search of that database will turn up deals made by the agent. Granted, this is not foolproof. Some agents don't report on PM. However, when you are investigating an agent, you are looking for both positive and negative feedback. A list of deals made can go in the "positive" column.

5) If you can't find deals listed on the agent's website or on Publishers Marketplace, ask them directly to give you a list of the books they've sold. Then follow up to make sure these were REAL deals and not more self-published stuff. If they claim to be a new agent without deals yet, this is a red flag. Ask where they worked previously and google that. Lots of editors go out on their own to become agents. However, you should be able to find information on the publisher they worked for and the books they edited. You also need to decide if you want to be the first client of a new agent. It may work out; it may not. The skills sets for agent and editor are different. My own agent is a former editor, but she's been an agent for a long time.

6) If the agent demands an upfront fee, RUN. No matter what they call it--retainer, reading fee, advance--RUN. Legitimate agents do not request money from clients. They earn their income from the deals they make and the royalties and advances paid to the writer by the publisher. Money should ALWAYS flow to the writer, not from the writer.

7) Recently a number of writers have been approached by people claiming to be agents who read the writer's blog and are interested in representing the writer because of the marvelous quality of the work. While this MIGHT happen, it is less than likely. Most agents have their hands full with submissions. They don't need to go looking for clients.

8) Another red flag is fulsome praise. Everyone wants to be validated. However, when the praise goes over the top, red flags should be raised. Any time a writer is told they are the next Mark Twain, Stephen King, Nora Roberts, or John Steinbeck, they need to take a deep breath and consider the source. I know your mother thinks you're a good writer, but come on. Let's stay in the real world. I suspect the people who get taken here are the ones who write in isolation and are not in critique groups. Good critique partners will teach you humility. Mine do every day.

9) Beware of anyone who pushes you for an immediate decision. A legitimate agent is looking to build a relationship. Someone who threatens that the offered contract will be withdrawn in eight or forty-eight hours (usually coupled with a claim that they are working with a publisher who needs an immediate decision) is trying to get you to ignore those warning bells in the back of your head.

10) If you hear warning bells, slow down. Talk to writers you personally know and trust. DO NOT go back on the loop where you found the agent and ask there. There are likely to be sock puppets lying in wait to reassure you. The other problem is you may find writers who are being scammed, but who haven't realized it yet. Go to Absolute Write and post a query. Jenna Glatzer and Victoria Strauss give great advice. Send an email to Miss Snark. I've asked her questions and gotten good, solid responses.

11) If the agent says he will take your manuscript if you have it professionally edited, take a deep breath--especially if they give the names of specific editors. Legitimate agents DO NOT refer to editors by name; they say you need editing. I blogged several months ago about a writer who thought an agent was on the up and up because she was given three names of potential editors. Turned out all three names had the same IP address. Go back and read my blog for 12/08/05 here ("Anatomy of a Writing Scam") about the "agent" who scammed writers by using different names for herself as agent, editor and publisher.

12) Remember: publishing is a business. Agents are business people who do not take on clients unless they believe they can sell the work. Publishing houses are business operations. They do not take on manuscripts that they don't believe will sell.

Advice for wannabe writers. Stop blaming agents and publishers for not contracting your work. They don't owe you anything. Saying they are only in it for the money makes you sound like an idiot. Would you say a doctor is only in the business of healing for the money?

What's prompting me to say this is the plaintive tone of some of the comments on Kate Hyde's blog. Several victims suggested that publishers contact them. Hello?

I know those poor victims are feeling beat up and beat down. However, to expect that a publisher is going to contact someone outside of the regular query process is delusional. Publishers are in business to make money, not to do social work.

13) There are NO shortcuts. If you are going to get impatient or depressed, maybe writing isn't for you. Real writers keep writing UNTIL. They have no choice. They could no more stop writing than they could stop breathing. They plug away, year after year--taking workshops, getting critiques, attending conferences, and learning about the industry. Remember what Joe Konrath says: "What do you call a writer who won't give up? Published."

Impatience and arrogance won't help you get published. They will only make you a target for scam artists. Crooks prey on people who are too impatient to wait or too unwilling to subject their own writing to a critical eye. I see these writers every day. They start out with the right mindset. After four or five rejections, they get impatient and angry and start talking about self-publishing.

Four or five rejections? Try a hundred. Lots of well-known writers racked up triple-digit rejections before they finally were published. If you want to be a published writer, you need to pay the dues. There's no other way. Write, write and write some more.

To those writers who were taken in by Hill & Hill: I know you feel awful. I know some of you are thinking about walking away from the business altogether. Don't do it. Take a break. Write something new, or give yourself some time to recover.

This was not about you. This was about a corrupt predator who took advantage of your eagerness to be published. That doesn't mean you will never be published. It just means the time (or your manuscript) isn't ready yet.

Good luck to you. My thoughts are with you today.