Behler Blog

This is the last installment of my Reasons to Self-Publish series.This series is based on a comment left on our blog that laid out all the reasons to self-publish, with which I heartily disagreed. There are good reasons to consider self-publishing one’s book, but the points brought up in this series aren’t a part of that discussion, and I want to explain why.

Self-publishing offers me control of all my content, cover, rights, and better royalties. In addition, I can offer it sooner than the several years many books take to get into print.

This is true. But do you really want that responsibility? There are gazillions of poorly done self-pubbed books because the authors didn’t know what they were doing. If you’re going to compete against publishers who do this for a living, then you won’t get away with inferior cover art, writing, editing, or no promotion/marketing plan.

Any author who has visions of sales MUST first realize they are a business person, and that means that you want it right – not fast. You may get the book out to market sooner, but if it’s an inferior product, your better royalties aren’t going to amount to the price of a Big Mac.

And cover art? Yes, you do have control over this, but oh dearie me, this is slicey dicey stuff that shouldn’t be left in the fingers of the neophyte. I don’t care what anyone tries to tell you, but everyone – and I mean everyone – judges a book by its cover. Sure, liking or disliking a cover is subjective, but I think everyone agrees that poorly done clip art is like bug spray. Do yourself a favor and hire a good cover artist who can capture the essence of your book.

The days are mostly gone for the writer who wants to sit on a desert island, writing their tomes while sucking down pineapple drinks laced with rum. Writing is a business, which means that you have to be conversant in the entire process – from writing, to production, to distribution, to market and promotion, to sales. If you don’t know, then how will you know when someone is doing a good or crappy job?

Yes, a book can get out to market sooner if you self-publish, but the reason it takes time for a commercial press to put out a book is because of the time they spend on production and promotion. Review copies need to go out to reviewers and media four months before the book comes out. Catalogs need to be in sales people’s hands six months before a book comes out. This is done to make the movers and shakers aware of your book before it ever comes out. Building a ground swell takes time.

Getting it out fast doesn’t equal sales. Working smart equals sales.

The Cinderella Story

I’d be remiss if I failed to talk about the newest Big Deal self publisher, Hugh Howey and his his book Wool. The Wall Street Journal has a wonderful article covering this new millionaire self-publisher. I’m thrilled for him because he did it on his terms and hit the big time. When stories like this come out, I know this will cement the resolve of many, many writers out there to self-pub their works.

After all, where else can you put out a book and sit back to watch the $$ roll in? But like everything else in life, this is the exception, not the rule. It has to do with being the right story at the right time, in the right circumstances. And since it’s the exception, I recommend keeping your feet firmly planted on the ground, nose to the grindstone, and taking control of your destiny – which begins by understanding the industry, knowing how to write, knowing your competition, and treating your writing like a business. And never, never, never blame anyone else for your lack of success.

As I’ve said before, there are lots of reasons to self-publish, but it’s a decision based on reality, and the author does a huge amount of planning in order to capitalize on their hard work and research. If you’re in it to win it, then assume the position and go get ’em.

This is Part III of my Reasons to Self Publish series. This series is based on a comment left on one of my blog posts as to the poster’s reasons to self publish, which I felt warranted discussion. There are all sorts of reasons to self publish, but I don’t feel these are a viable argument to that discussion.

The printing industry is the gatekeeper of content

Vanity and POD publishers were very good at creating the illusion of elitism in order to attract authors. They also excelled at telling authors they “deserve” to be published. This was their “We’re folksy and nice, and you’ll love working with us because we’re giving you what you deserve.” It’s a lovely idea, but it’s little more than sleight of hand because they failed to reveal they couldn’t get books out to market and into readers’ hands nor do they market or promote. The byproduct of this is that they unwittingly created an entitlement culture that believes they’re owed a publishing contract because they put cyber pen to cyber paper, and if they’re rejected, it’s not due to lack of a publishable book.

My fertile imagination conjures up images of secret meetings of all the publishers in smoke-filled backrooms, drinking Bourbon while conspiring to censor what gets published, and the penalty for breaking The Double-Secret Probation Code is a midnight visit from the goon squad who will blow up your company and steal errant rescue beagles.

Come on, publishing is a business, just like selling shoes or margarita mix, and they keep their doors open by selling books that appeal to a lot of readers. This allows them to stay in business. The logical “duh” moment is that they need to have a quality product, which means the best of the best are what’s on their radar.

And mind you, the publishing business is based on speculation. Publishers pour out tens of thousands of dollars before they ever realize any remuneration – and they have only their best educated guess as to whether that book will actually sell well enough to keep the lights on. So to suggest that publishers are the gatekeepers of content doesn’t hold water. The big question is, “Will it sell?”

There are as many topics of books as there are readers who will buy them, and I dismiss the notion that anyone consciously censors a subject. They have to consider whether the subject matter will end up in a lawsuit, or is so inflammatory that they’ll have to recall the book. But “gatekeep” reading material for kicks and giggles? Nope.

I’ve always compared this “publishers are gatekeepers” comment to sour grapes. Reminds me of the complaint that every editor has heard at least once in their career,  “You didn’t publish me because you’re against me.”

Perhaps it would be more illuminating if the author looked within. If you’re busy blaming the publishing industry for your lack of success, then you can become stuck in the excuse and stab about for an easy fix that may not be the best fit for you – ergo “They’re against me, so I’ll self-publish.” This is not an Us Against You business. It’s about carefully choosing the best option for your book and your personality.

Now, does that mean great books aren’t published and really crappy ones are? Sure.  But it comes down to a matter of taste. Look at 50 Shades. I’ve seen tons of people complain the whole series sucks stale Twinkie cream. If that’s so, then how do we explain its huge sales? Believe me, there is no conspiracy. There are simply far more writers than there are publishers, and publishers have the pick of the litter.

Being published by a traditional printing house has no correlation to value, truth, or facts – they keep us in the dark.

I’m not even sure what this means, and I would hand over my collection of bloody red pens if someone could provide proof of this. This eludes back to that grand publishing conspiracy, and that’s plain laughable. What Random House won’t publish, for whatever reason, may find a home at Sourcebooks. What doesn’t fit in at Sourcebooks may find a perfect home at Behler.

Publishing is about competition, and we’re all looking to make an impact in our little corner of the reading world, to touch lives, to make a difference, to entertain. This is a game of numbers.

I’ve had queries come to me that the big guys passed on because those particular books didn’t fit in with their lineup. They have far more mouths to feed than I do, and not all books are going to sell 50,000 units. Does that make them any less important? Not in my humble opinion. I can keep the rescue beagles in designer doggeh chewies with fewer sales because my needs aren’t as grand. That doesn’t mean I won’t pull out the stops to sell 50K units, but the reality is that the book simply isn’t a 50K selling book.

That’s the beauty of the independent trade publisher. They do well with fewer sales, which means more books are being published…not less. They can be more apt to take a chance on a dicey topic because a thousand sales is still a win in their column, whereas those sales would be dismal to a Big Gun.

Here’s Some Free Advice

The bestest gift to a writer can give herself is realizing publishing is a business, and she is a businesswoman. Successful business people don’t waste time playing the blame game. They look at their writing as a business. They don’t blame others as to why they aren’t succeeding, but rather, they attend to ways that will ensure their success.

Anyone can be a whine and give up to play the blame game. But where will that get you? Anyone can be mediocre. Is that what you aspire to?

The ones who succeed look in the mirror and ask, “Am I doing everything I can to enhance my changes for winning? If not, what more do I need to do? To learn?” This is far healthier than believing conspiracies lurk around every corner in an effort to shut you out.

How about your own career? What were some of the tricks you used to help your writing, your querying, your book, and your success?

This is Part II of a three-part series about a comment left on one of my blog posts that gave all the reasons why self-publishing is a better choice than going with a commercial trade press. As I’ve always maintained, there are some great possibilities with self-publishing provided you know what you’re up against and know what you’re doing.

I feel these reasons aren’t a compelling argument:

Publishers would turn down my book because it’s very controversial.

Here’s a newsflash: Publishers adore controversy because it’s very good for news and gets people talking. What publishers do shy away from are subjects they fear won’t sell. They get their lead from what they see in the media because they will look to that same media when their book comes out.

If we see people talking about Alzheimers, then it’s a good bet that Early Onset Alzheimers will be a natural because it affects younger people. This is why Jan’s Story is such a huge hit.

However, if a book discusses the agony of ingrown toenails, then publishers would pass on it because it’s not a big deal, nor is it in the news.

But what about those in between topics? That’s where things can get frustrating.

For example, a lovely woman in my Penn Writers group told me agents and editors weren’t all that enthusiastic about elder abuse, which surprised me. Sure, it’s a tough subject, but so is addiction, cheating, and AIDs, yet there are a ton of those books out there. Elder abuse should be a part of our national discussion because it’s a sick, twisted aberration of our society, and we need to bring it out into the open as well. And agents are afraid to touch it? Hmm.

So yes, there are topics that seem to scare people, but to say that someone won’t touch your book because of its controversial nature is unfair. It boils down to the topic and an author’s platform.

With nonfiction, controversial subjects really need a strong author platform because it’s the only way a reader will take you seriously. If you claim to have proof that the medical community is hiding cancer cures, then you not only need a rocking amount of proof, but a platform to back it up. This is a large part of why I reject works…lack of proof, and lack of author platform. I adore something provocative, but the author has to be bullet-proof.

And it’s not just nonfiction. Years ago, an editor friend of mine read a manuscript (fantasy) whose main characters were gay. It was a good book, and she was prepared to take it to her submissions committee for their gay imprint. The author refused to allow it to be considered for that imprint, insisting that the book should be marketed as mainstream fantasy. My friend didn’t believe it would sell well to a mainstream crowd.

The author was livid and accused my friend of being afraid to publish a controversial story to a mainstream audience. It was a ridiculous argument because it’s about marketing to the audience who will embrace the book. It’s like me trying to market PULSE OF MY HEART (a gorgeous love story about an amazing Heart Couple) to an Alzheimer’s readership. Epic fail.

Making blanket statements that publishers shy away from controversy holds zero water because there is always a solid reason for it. If you hear this from an editor and decide to self-pub, then you need to be doubly aware of the uphill road facing you in terms of making sales should you decide to self-pub.

The publisher refused to print the “real” facts of my book.

Editors don’t obfuscate the facts an author has written without good reason. For example, if an author’s book about the power of positive thinking has a section that states a coffee enema guarantees your mood will improve could lead an editor to balk.  Does this make the editor horrible and the author unfairly treated, or is there no quantitative proof that this advice is valid?

Before an editor removes content, she discusses the problem with the author, so there are no surprises. It’s provocative to make blanket statements about publishers refusing to print the “real” facts because it makes no sense. And if a publisher does refuse to print the “real” facts, then the author needs to appreciate the uphill battle they face in going it alone, where they don’t have support or a literary barometer.

Have you felt victimized by a publisher or agent whom you felt didn’t want your book because it was too controversial, or refused to print what you feel are the real facts? If so, do you feel it was an arbitrary decision, or did they point out the problems with your story?