![cover[1]](https://lousybookcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cover129.jpg)
Are You Still Submitting Your Work to a Traditional Publisher?
And the piece de resistance in this author’s resume… (h/t DED)
Are You Still Submitting Your Work to a Traditional Publisher?
And the piece de resistance in this author’s resume… (h/t DED)
Okay – I can’t stand this anymore. *knocks on the screen* Vanity Presses are not, and never have been, true “self” publishing. Indie, however IS. ECP, you can’t even describe your product accurately. I’m done.
What, a typewriter heading for an iceberg. Well, it’s old book, published at the beginning of the Indie revolution. And despite that, over 300 of this title was taken this weekend so far and 6.536 copies sold to date with 40 five stars out of 50 reviews. Oh, but that’s for content. I’d give myself 2 5-stars and the lousiness of the cover. The book predicted back in 2008 that the Publishing Industry would be taking a header and Amazon would be eating the industry’s shorts. I’m not the only one who predicted that. My good friend Mark Coke of Smashwords did too. And just as an aside – Vanity publishing and self-publishing are two different beasts. Vanity publishing is where you pay to see your book in print and then get shipped the books to dispose of them (or not) as you will. Self-publishing means the author takes on the role of a Publisher and all the responsibilities and headaches thereof, including “lousy” covers. lol. All kidding aside, I love this thread, blog, facebook discussion, because if these were reviews, I’d never voice myself – but we’re talking about my covers, which are a source of prideful fun. I’ve even put my oar in with other author’s lousy covers, even one’s I know personally.
Maybe he should submit his work to a traditional publisher and see what they think of it… or he already did and that’s why he felt the need to write a book about it. Self-publishing doesn’t mean you can get away with crap, you know? It’s still publishing and you’re still trying to sell your books to discerning readers.
I’m very familiar with the traditional road of publishing and I never received a rejection that was not useful. And in the preface of Ths Jade Owl (which was passed on after four editorial levels – they only publish 2 authors per annum – to be considered was an honor)I thank them for their support. Now my 24 publsihed works are not hell’s on fire, but I’ve sold 57,000 copies and have a fan base. I’m not in it for the money. Over the long haul I’ve only made $13,000, which has paid a bill or two. I make more on my annuity and twice as much from SSA. I’m in it for the legacy of readership. I’ve gotten my share of one-star reviews on Amazon, from readers (not friends and family – got not family and friends are instructed to not review, even if they read the book, which they generally don’t)I have a respectable 357 reviews (249 are 5 stars, 74 are 4-stars, 16 are 3-stars, 9 are 2-stars and 11 are 1-stars). I treasure them all, even the one’s and two’s, although some of those are grating, like the one-star given because Amazon allows gay people to publish enooks. Oh, well.
I’m just thinking of how many more books you could be selling with a beautiful cover on them, sir. Those don’t say much about the quality of your publishing process and that’s a shame.
A one-star because you’re gay and out? I think that says more about that person being a bigot and a douche than anything else. I’m queer myself but I’m lucky enough to live in Canada.
If you ever need help with your covers, take a look at this site’s sister: covercritics.com. Same people, different atmosphere. 😉
That one-star has, at last count, 48 thumbs down. I might have the covers redone when I leave my rights to my nephew so he can get the benefits when he calls the shots. Right now, my readership has far surpassed my expectations. But thank you for your kind words and advise.
I have to second Lucie’s comments. You speak about how pleased you are that you’ve sold as many books as you have…but how many more might you have sold if they looked more professional?
Also as Lucie points out, these covers underscore one answer to the question posed by the title of the current book: A traditional publisher will make your book look professional.
I third Lucie’s recommendation to submit your covers to the Cover Critics web site for feedback before you publish. Also take a look at The Book Designer’s monthly cover contest.
I know you say you don’t do it for the money, but wouldn’t it be nice to reach more readers? You have at least one positive comment here on the quality of your writing. It would be nice if the quality of your covers matched the words. And readers do pay attention to covers.
A+ for Canadian Queers!
Oh yeah, and book covers, blah blah blah, something about it not being good, blah blah, something about a duck.
You’ve never received a form rejection?
Never. Always and editorial rejection, which was very helpful.
To be fair, from my first submission back in 1986, I’ve never had a form rejection either.
In 28 years? That seems statistically unlikely.
Two things: As much as it might pain someone to have the word “vanity” attached to their project, vanity publishing and self-publishing are the same thing. To say that in one case the author is paying someone else to take on the editing, publishing and printing of their book and in the other case they assume these roles themselves is quibbling. It makes self-publishing sound a little nicer to not call it vanity publishing, but that’s what it really is.
Second: As nice as Mr. Patterson seems to be and as serious as seems to be about his work, I cannot help but detect a hint of excuse-making when I hear things like “I’m not in it for the money” or “I’m in it for the legacy of my readers.” When he talks about how little his books have earned, perhaps he might want to sit back and consider why this is so.
But to defend him on one point: I’ve been publishing through traditional publishers for more than forty years and while I’ve gotten my share of rejection letters I have never received a form rejection.
Now that I’ve seen the rest of his covers I think I may have a clue to the answer to the question I asked in my second paragraph…
It’s a shame that the covers are so bad because the one book I took a look at seems to be extremely well-written.
Thanks Nathan – to clarify. I’ve been authoring all my life. I’m 67 and started writing early, my first novel at age 8 – and no excuses for that piece of . . . BUT, life is long and circuitous. Although I continued to write and graduated to authoring (I believe the two are different, one encompassing the other). However, after my military service in the 60’s I ventured on a course of study in Sinology (Chinese Culture and History) and made it through an MA and on a doctoral track at Columbia U (Old Pew). BUT never got work in my chosen discipline and fell back on a business career. I rose to a corporate Director position in Marketing (at Dun & Bradstreet) and was downsized in 2002. I’m still with the remnants of that company making my 49th year in a few weeks. I intend to continue working until I’m 78 or 79, another 10 or 11 years. In’s no coincidence that my publishing career started in 2002 and took off when KDP was born (my first Kindle offering was in 2007, a month in advance of the Kindle itself), so I’ve been in it in the beginning. I’ve been knocked about, but got the important publishing pieces together – the editing bear, which is by far more a beast than the cover. Most of my work is fiction and poetry, but the book on this discussion is a tutorial on how to self-publish and covers many of the tough questions which I faced and mastered. As far as the “not in it for the money,” that’s true not an excuse. I realized that INCOME is a rare thing considering the 3,500 books published daily in the US – so the motivation must be something different and if there’s a little money to be made so be it. I don’t need the money. But authoring is a lifelong commitment for me, a way to reach readers and since I have no children, husband or wife, it is my lasting legacy. That this little non-fiction work pulled over 200 copies this weekend in Australia is a good feeling. Is it vanity? Perhaps, as my ego is a big as Kansas. I’m a sharer and since my work has been well-received, well-read and continues to mushroom needs no defense, especially from a half-blind, old gay codger. But I’ve been a lamp for others, with this little book and with Operation eBook Drop engaging over a thousand Indie authors to offer free eBooks to the Armed Forces. So I thank you for your comments. I love this discussion group. As you know, authors can never (or at their own risk) engage reviewers publicly, but this isn’t a review site – it comments on what author’s a least likely to master. Besides, at the OP states, he wants to have fun – and so do I.
You’re that old and have that impressive of a resume and you still don’t know how to use paragraph breaks to make your comments legible? Walls of text help no one.
Sorry, I meant Thanks Ron.
Ed
Beg to differ; “vanity publishing” and “self-publishing” have very distinct definitions which have moved further apart in the last decade or so.
The definitions may have changed (and I suspect largely in order for self-publishing to distance itself from the onus of the word “vanity”) but the essence of what is going on has not.
When an author publishes their own book, essentially by-passing the editorial gauntlet it would have to go through when publishing traditionally, I see no difference between traditional vanity publishing and self-publishing. In both cases the author is acting as their own publisher since in both cases they are underwriting the publication of their own book. And the line separating the two that I’ve seen drawn in this discussion would seem to be blurred when the self-published author hires professional editors and designers to work on their book…and I can’t think of any self-published authors who print and bind their own books.
What is the difference? I would have rather thought vanity publishing is a subset of self-publishing, rather than a separate thing. I was involved in publishing an anthology of local writing, called Phoenix Ink, and really, I couldn’t place it in one category or other, except than ‘vanity’ is of course a mortal sin, so we would not confess to that 😀 – If you can’t find the time to explain, maybe point to a source that does?
“vanity publishing and self-publishing are the same thing.”
And by “the same thing” you mean “both are methods of getting published that I disapprove of.”
Here’s a similar “same thing” that’s at least as valid: Traditional publishing is the same thing as walking down the street with a manuscript and having a mugger knee you in the groin and then walk away laughing with your MS while you lie groaning in the gutter. You happen to spy 35 cents in the gutter, so you pocket that and go home pretending you’ve made a good deal.
You can read whatever you want into what I wrote, but I would suggest that from your comments you don’t actually know very much about traditional publishing (nor the fact that in addition to the 40+ books I’ve had published traditionally I’ve also published something like 100 titles on my own…so I have nothing against self-publishing).
It seems all well and good for people to point at the seemingly great difference in royalties per book sold between self-publishing and traditional publishing. But it also must be remembered that the self-published author is in fact a publisher. This means they are responsible for all the costs of producing a professional-quality product. This may mean hiring an editor and proofreader and a cover designer. They are also responsible for marketing and advertising their book (for instance, every free copy sent to a reviewer has to be paid for by the author). All of this has to come out of the author’s pocket. To say nothing of the time spent…which could have been spent writing the next book.
A traditional publisher charges the author nothing for the services of professional editing, copy-editing, proofreading, art and design, advertising and marketing. On top of this, the author receives a non-refundable advance which they get to keep even if the book doesn’t sell a single copy. In short, the publisher bears all the expenses and risks of publishing your book. And while all of this is being done, the author can focus on what they supposedly do best: writing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with self-publishing, but I think an author needs to explore every avenue first, and realistically, and not jump into self-publishing willy-nilly.
I might add that virtually all the reasons authors once went to vanity presses also apply to many if not most self-published books. These reasons might include subjects or topics in which traditional publishers would have no interest; books too specialized to warrant traditionally printed editions; fear of editors interfering with (or even rewriting) what an author has written; wanting total control over a book; or books rejected because they are of too poor quality or because they are too derivative. There are, of course, also those authors who simply enjoy the hands-on process of publishing or who want to experience for themselves the steps involved in publishing a book. (And the wisest of the latter do exactly what commercial publishers do: they hire professional help.)
That latter parenthetical comment also embraces the similarity between self-publishing and vanity publishing. One author may employ a professional editor, designer, etc. They will employ some POD company or another to actually produce and probably also distribute their book. Another author may simply employ a single company to provide all of these services. This to me makes little difference between the two.
Excuse me, but traditional publishers charge a hell of a lot for all those services you mentioned, just not up front. And in modern contracts, they continue to charge for the life of the copyright.
Too true, Lydia. Publishers make back their investment by nicking the authors with smaller and smaller royalty percentages. On top of that, publishers do less and less promotion for anyone not in their stable of big-name authors (or worthless celebrities with an itch to publish worthless manuscripts by their handpicked ghostwriters) by expecting their authors to almost as much independent promotion as one does with self-pubbing. One of the few advantages left these days to a traditional publisher picking up your novel is you’re more likely to get in brick and mortar stores and have a wider sales reach because of the publisher’s catalog and broad sales channels.
The traditional v. self argument’s been beaten near to death in blogs and chat rooms all over the web. Whether one self-pubs or wins the trad-pub lottery the result all comes down to the same things: quality of product (from writing to graphics) and dogged promotion.
The thing that irks me is the places that prey on folks’ dreams and promise glory for just a small fortune of the author’s money; in return for all that dosh they line their own pockets, provide crappy services, and let the author flounder in a cold river of empty promises.
Self-publishing should be a conscious, knowledge-based decision, as much as querying publishers should be. It’s the scammers who overcharge for shoddy services, uneducated authors who plunge in and get burned (and too many don’t even know it), and baseless, pie-eyed visions of self-pubbing super-success that taint the whole business. Worst of all the scammers continue to promote those empty visions and lay hold on people’s gullibility. People who don’t realize publishing of any kind is business–selling a product and making money–where understanding the fine print needs to be, sadly, more important than fulfilling a dream.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear 2!
I think this is a hear, hear from the entire planet!
I have no idea where you get this information from.
I have never had any such provision in any contract I have received from any publisher. In fact, they all contain a time limit within which the publisher must keep a book in print after which all rights revert back to the author (which has occurred with about half the books I’ve had published traditionally).
Nor do any traditional publishers charge authors for any of the services I mentioned. I have no idea what you mean by not charging for them “up front.”
If you don’t have those provisions in your particular contract, you’re either very lucky, or had a good lawyer. For the larger publishers that clause is in most if not all of their newer contracts, plus others as bad or worse.
If you look at the percentage you get on royalties vs the publisher’s cut, I think it’s very obvious who’s making out financially. Publishers get back every penny they spend on a book, plus lots more. Nothing wrong with that of course, it’s a business. But the percentage of profit for a publisher vs any money an author gets is seriously skewed, and IMO, unfair to authors. Especially for ebooks.
“You can read whatever you want into what I wrote,”
No I can’t — not validly, anyway. If I’m wrong then I’m wrong. I thought that your comment was just a derogatory dig at self publishing, and apparently I was wrong about that.
But self publishing is still not “the same thing” as vanity publishing, for many and various reasons, some of which have already been pointed out by others on this thread.
“but I would suggest that from your comments you don’t actually know very much about traditional publishing”
Perhaps you would, but you shouldn’t, because you’d be wrong, and there was nothing in my comment to lead you to that conclusion.
When you describe traditional publishing in this way: “Traditional publishing is the same thing as walking down the street with a manuscript and having a mugger knee you in the groin and then walk away laughing with your MS while you lie groaning in the gutter. You happen to spy 35 cents in the gutter, so you pocket that and go home pretending you’ve made a good deal” I think I was justified in coming to the conclusion I did.
Read again; my whole comment, from the beginning, using both eyeballs.
Ron – I need to disagree. When an author goes through a vanity press, they have NO control over pricing or distribution. The company publishes the book under their company name (often with NO editing) and retains all the rights to whatever the author paid them literally thousands of dollars to create. The author only owns the original document – not the cover, website, edited manuscript, or anything else in the “package.”
SELF-publishing authors can (should) pay for services, such as editing and cover design, after which they OWN those products. Self-publishing authors have full control over pricing and distribution, and they own whatever domains they buy. Actual self-publishing is free, otherwise.
Sadly, ignorant newbie authors think they are the same, because they Google “self publishing” and the vanity presses pop up. They don’t know that it is impossible to build a career off a vanity press, unlike MANY New York Times best-selling truly self-published authors.
I hope this makes the difference clear.
I’m not going to pore through all of the comments since I’m pretty sure what the tenor of the negative ones is going to be.
So let me make myself clear.
If an author writes, edits, formats and creates the cover for their own book and then sends it off to some service–whether digital or print–for distribution or printing I presume they are a self-publisher?
If an author pays other people to edit, format and create the cover for their book then sends it off to some service–whether digital or print–for distribution or printing I presume they are still a self-publisher? (For instance, there are any number of people offering complete editing and design services for self-publishers. Send them a MS and you get back an edited, formatted book with a cover and everything, all ready to send to Lulu or Createspace or whoever you want to print your book for you. Does using a service like this negate calling yourself a self-publisher?)
If an author chooses to pay someone who offers all of these services under one roof—from editing to formatting to printing…is that author still a self-publisher? I would think so, since the author is still paying for the production of their book and is the sole decision-maker in the process.
That’s all a vanity press is: a company that will produce a finished book where all the costs of editing, formatting, cover design, etc. are underwritten by the author. The vanity press doesn’t publish the book: the author does.
If that’s so, then what is the substantive difference, if any, between an author who does all their own work, the author who hires outside professional help and the author who goes to a vanity press offering publishing services under one roof? In every instance the author is underwriting the production costs of their book and making all the decisions regarding it. And so long as they are doing this, they are the publisher of their book. And if they are the publisher that makes their book self-published.
What few attempts I’ve seen at establishing a difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing seem to be not entirely successful efforts to get as much distance as possible from the word “vanity.” The results, so far as I can see, are convoluted and unconvincing.
After all, if the books that drove the creation of this website are not vanity productions in the strictest sense of the phrase, I can’t imagine what else they could be.
One little differentiating point, and I’ll say no more. PublishAmerica.
Indeed, indeed!
In fact, you will see in my last post that I backed off of much of what I was saying about vanity publishing. My error was in looking at it as a term (after all, “vanity” certainly is the driver behind tens of thousands of self-published books) and not an industry.
You know…it only just now occurred to me that I’ve been defining “vanity publishing” on its own terms and not really looking closely at the industry that bears its name…which, as many of you pointed out, is all too often a scam. In which case, yes, there is a big difference between self-publishing and Vanity Publishing (which I put in caps to distinguish the phrase from the way in which I had been using it).
That being said…
I strongly believe that it is always best for an author who thinks they have a worthwhile book to present it to traditional publishers first and only consider self-publishing if that fails.
The advantages to traditional publishing are enormous and, for all I’ve been taken to task for not fully understanding the difference between vanity and self-publishing, I’ve seen nothing but complete misunderstanding in this comment page about the nature of traditional publishing. Almost everything said about it so far has been erroneous…sometimes amazingly so.
I thought that way too, but with my Flag Ship book I came to the cross roads and I decided to put it up for a vote to my beta-readers (a biased crew no doubt) and they told me I should let that bird (it’s an Owl after all) fly. I did and have never looked back – no more query letters, synopsis’ or agents (although my agent was a better editor than an agent). I also thought no more Editor, but that was a mistake and, although I’m a fine editor for other people’s work, no author should be the ultimate editor. I have an editor, who works for free (can;t beat that), plus I use Serenity and two hantural read back programs, and before I launch, my book is read to me by Katie the Kindlespreche (the text-to-speech lady who lives inside my Kindle). I have a zero tolerance for thoroughly proofed books – editing is a different story (beyond proofing).