Bringing Sexy Back to Self-Publishing

Want to get an instant eye-roll from a traditional book editor or reviewer?

Just say the words, "self-published." Not that there aren't killer books that go the self-publishing route. We've all heard about the monster bestsellers that started out that way, from What Color is My Parachute to A Time to Kill. But, for the most part, self-publishing still gets a bum rap. And, truthfully, much of it is deserved. Especially now.

Because technology has made it so simple and affordable for anyone with an idea to turn it into a book. And just like a paintbrush and a canvas doesn't an artist make, an idea and a keyboard doesn't an author make. Most self-published books are, well, um, not good. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be written, though. If you're drawn to write and you love the process, go ahead and write. And, if you want to see your labor turned into a book, go ahead and print it. Won't cost you much these days. But, there's often a huge difference between the product that's the result of your own edification and the one that survives editorial acquisition, development and scrutiny.

Which is why self-publishing has gotten such a bum rap.

Enter IndieReader.com, the brainchild of traditionally and self-published author and publicist, Amy Edelman. Edelman's vision is to create an online hub that spotlights the best of the best in the world of self-published books and give readers a high-quality alternative source of great books from standout self-published authors.

Edelman shares:

"What so many people don't realize is that self-pubbed writers are not a group of frustrated, no-talent writers. Rather they include established authors like Stephen King, intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Lisa Genova and Brunonia Barry, writers who couldn't find anyone to publish their books, did it themselves, and landed on the NY Times bestseller list. It is my belief that there are many more great works and writers out there, just waiting to be found by adventurous readers."

Edelman does concede, though, there is geometrically more noise in the self-publishing world than signal.

Which is precisely where sites like IndieReader.com add value to the process.

On the author side, IndieReader charges authors a $99 annual fee, which includes a $25, non-refundable submission fee (much like film competitions and colleges). If your book is not accepted onto the site, you get all but the $25 back. The fee covers the time it takes to do reviews, maintain and publicize the site. In return for the fee, authors get their own web pages on IndieReader.com to sell their books and the IndieReader.com crew works hard to establish themselves as the premier destination on the web for great indie books.

On the consumer side, readers know that the self-published authors who "make the IndieReader.com grade" have been vetted, hand-picked and anointed cream of the crop. Which begs the question, exactly who is this mystery board of self-publishing tastemakers and why should we listen to them?

The core group includes Edelman, who is herself a big-house and self-published author, publicist, PR/Marketing Director, Claire McKinney, also a former acquisitions editor from a mid-size house, and Editorial Director, Carrie Cantor.

All have strong editorial experience and years of understanding both what's good and what readers value. But, Edelman is quick to point out,

"We are absolutely not replicating the kind of vetting process that publishers do. The primary focus in mainstream publishing is not so much on the quality of a book or the information it offers but rather on whether it has a market of a particular size that can be easily reached and whether the author has a substantial "platform." At IR, our one criterion is: Does the book offer something of value to some readers? We do not consider the marketability of the book at all. We are looking only at its content."

Does that mean you'll like every book Edelman and her team select?

Not likely, but with an estimated 200,000-300,000 largely unedited and unvetted self-published books flooding the market every year, sites like IndieReader.com offer a strong value proposition. They give book lovers who seek to support undiscovered, talented writers a way to wade into the waters without spending all their time dodging duds.

 

Follow Jonathan Fields on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonathanfields

Comments

[lportzline]

Rule of thumb: If the "self-publishing" company you're working with "assigns" an ISBN number to your book, THEY published it -- not you. If you don't own the ISBN, you didn't publish it. It's that simple. And it can severely limit what you can do with "your" book in the future. Read the fine print and ask lots of questions. If the answers are incomplete or vague, RUN.

[TFowler]

Some corrections, for the benefit of aspiring authors who may read this: Grisham's A TIME TO KILL was NOT self-pubbed (Grisham mentioned this himself when I heard him speak recently), it was published first by a very small, but traditional, press and only became a hit when it was re-pubbed following the success of THE FIRM--which was sold for big $ with a film deal also attached.

Both Lisa Genova and Brunonia Barry did NOT go directly from self-pubbed to the NYT list. Their novels became bestsellers only after being re-pubbed by major houses (which happened in part due to the help of an independent publicity firm). The publicity factor of their *unusual* book deals was key to fueling their successes...so using them as examples of what can happen to those who choose the self-publishing route is somewhat misleading.

No doubt that Edelman is correct in saying there are worthy books out there that aren't getting agented/published. The missing info here is how many novels have been self-published to-date, and then how many of those were bought and re-published and became hits? I have to think the odds of finding mainstream success and a writing *career* via this route are miniscule.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose self-publishing over traditional. It's important, though, to make that decision using accurate and complete information.

[Ergon]

The Celestine Prophecy was self published (I know the author) James Redfield found its niche, promoted and sold it at New Age Fairs, and it went on to become a monster best seller. My own effort, also self published, only sold 5000+ copies, but was one of the most satisfying things I did in my life.

[jjasper]

self-pubbed writers are not a group of frustrated, no-talent writers. Rather they include established authors like Stephen King, intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Lisa Genova and Brunonia Barry,

Which means they were all well off enough to have professional editors, typesetters and jacket designers, and a previous career in publishing works from major presses.

How does someone dropping out of large press publishing to self publish, then going *back* to large press publishing prove that undiscovered self publishing authors exist? The answer of course is that it doesn't, but the ad copy we're reading here makes it sound as if it does. The only way to prove there's real quality out there is to read what's out there, not rely on names like Steven King, who's latest door-stopper Under the Dome is not being self published. If self publishing was such a great deal for King, he'd still be at it.

[Kim Stagliano - Huffpost Blogger]

There are successful agented authors who are self-pubbing works. J.A. Konrath (author of the amazing Jack Daniels thrillers) wrote quite a post about it. http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2009/10/kindle-numbers-traditional-publishing.html.

I have an agent - Lord, querying is a process, isn't it?

(Come back, Miss Snark!)

[Rob Asghar - Huffpost Blogger]

Good column, Jonathan. In the spirit of IndieReader, and as someone whose first book is coming out soon in a "non-traditional way," I think it's helpful for us to move from talking about "self-publishing" to talking about "independent publishing."

The concept of "indie" has a rebel cachet in music and film, but not in books. Why is that? Most indie musicians are every bit as bad as most indie authors.

But maybe there are two reasons: 1) there are more known examples of great indie musicians and filmmakers who succeeded against the myopia of the traditional studios. And 2) no one uses the term "self-recorded musician," which is code for "loser."

So a little better marketing for this niche is in order. We can start by not calling it 'self-publishing' anymore. And IndieReader and others can help highlight the renegades who are producing quality works that the traditional houses tend to miss.

[BlackJAC]

Some of the STAR TREK spinoffs were the only TV shows on the air that would let you submit a script without an agent. When I found out an author I liked was trying to develop a show based on his books, I asked if he would be using a similar policy. He said no, on the grounds that getting an agent meant you were a professional; even with TREK the agented scripts got priority consideration over the unagented ones, and having an agent meant you could submit more than two scripts total to just one series.

I would surmise that a similar attitude is in play with books, for a self-published writer looks like they were either unable or unwililng to convince both an agent and a publisher that they're serious professionals.

[Amy Hertz - Huffpost Blogger]

Love this idea and would you post a blog on it for the books section?

[Kim Stagliano - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi - not sure that could work because of the Independent publishing houses - haven't they already taken up the name, "Indie?"