Does self-pub hurt/help publication chances? Think again.

I posted this on a linked-in forum in reply to a guy saying (as so many do, unchallenged) that "examples of self-published authors moving into mainstream are rare".

And it's one of those half-truths that has a statistical/logical flaw if generalized to "self-publishing hurts your chances at mainstream publication".
Namely that ANY author moving into mainstream publication is rare.

So the question would be, "Are previously self-published authors less likely to be accepted by mainstream publishers than writers with no background at all?"

I'm not sure that stat could be generated, actually, but I'm thinking that self-pubbed authors beat the par of submission/acceptance ratio to publishers.
It's worth thinking about in discussions of this nature.

lin wrote:

Namely that ANY author moving into mainstream publication is rare.

This is because most don't submit work that is commercially publishable. Which is an entirely separate subject from self-publishing, and doesn't take away from that guy's quote you posted here.

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. This is a matter of logic or statistics, as applied to the assumption that self-publishing doesn't help with acceptance.

The only way to know for sure, of course, would be to take the number of self-publishers who cross over to mainstream and compare it to the control group of all writers that submit to publishers and see if the acceptance rate is higher of lower.

Like I said, that's not something likely to be statistically established. But I think it's quite likely that self-publshers do better than non-published writers at getting the nod.

What the guy said about rarity of "cross-overs" is, as I said, true so far as it goes. But within the insinuation, it has no validity. Because getting published for ALL writers is rare.

Quote :

The only way to know for sure, of course, would be to take the number of self-publishers who cross over to mainstream and compare it to the control group of all writers that submit to publishers and see if the acceptance rate is higher of lower.

But what's the point of that? I think that guy is addressing the common delusion among the self-published that self-publishing will give their ms a better chance of commercial publication. It doesn't. They're just out money and effort.

You don't know if it's a delusion or not. That's the point I'm making, and you are missing.

It's very possible that self-publishing does, in fact give you a better shot at acceptance than not doing it. Stands to reason actually... however rare a "cross over" might be, it's a statistical advance over the "control group" of all writers.

Another way to look at it: if you can sell 60.000 copies of your SP book, you're pretty sure to get a contract somewhere. If you don't publish it, that's not going to happen. This is not a matter of cause and effect, it's a matter of examing the odds.

Furthermore, the self-publisher has another benefit the writer who keeps submitting doesn't have: his books are being read. He is gaining readership. Also, learning a thing or two about publishing, editing, a lot of things you don't learn in writing class.

This is much more consistent with current models of publishing than models that are falling away. Look into Cory Doctorow's comments on this.

But what I am saying here is a "debunk of the debunk" and it rests on statistical logic.
Simple, really, as saying, "You can't discount self-publishing as a road to publication on the grounds of rarity of success because the overall pattern of writing shows a success rate as rare or more so."

I was going to make comment, but; the world is changing so fast, my comment fell out of date.

Domenic

LOL
(or is that still what people say?)

A self-published author selling 60,000 copies? On what planet? And at what cost and effort?

What, exactly, is a self-published author going to learn about editing and publishing during this process that will help him as an author? They're three entirely different jobs. Why learn all this if the goal is to be an author?

As for a self-published book being "read" while waiting for a commercial home -so what. What does that "reading" really amount to? About the same as views of a free YouTube vid. Nothing.

Lin, I've got contracts with three commercial pubs. Here's my latest royalty check for my trade non-fic

https://2img.net/h/i83.photobucket.com/albums/j320/DrawMeAPicture/check.jpg

I didn't get it based on eyeballs looking for free reading on websites, and I didn't get it based on any effort of my own besides writing the book. That's why there are publishers and editors -to take what I give them and polish/sell it. The thing is, I have to give them something worth polishing and selling. Most folks don't. That's why commercial publication is rare.

I have sold way over 100,00 copies of a self-publshed book. On this very planet. Bill Branon sold 60.000 himself and got a contract with a major publisher.

You aren't talking about my post anymore, LC. Because, actually you didn't get it. It's about statistics and logic, not your credtentials.

Glad you're getting checis. Many do. But in point of fact, self-publishing shaves the odds for getting a book accepted by a publisher. Your own experience is only one number, doesn't affect that. Talk to somebody who's into logic or stats or freakonomics or something. They can probably explain this to you really quickly.

Or, just keep turning this into one more of a jillion "self-publishing is wonderful/evil" rant a thons.


What I said here is actually pretty hard to refute: the fact that few self-publishers get contracts is not a reason against self-publishing. Because very few non-self-publishers get contracts, either.

lin wrote:

You aren't talking about my post anymore, LC. Because, actually you didn't get it. It's about statistics and logic, not your credtentials.

I get it fine. You're trying to "prove" that because most people don't get their ms accepted by a commercial house, then sp isn't the dead-end street anyone with any experience in this business knows it is.

Glad you and Bill Branon sold so many books, seriously. You must be in that top .00001% that did. Why couldn't you sell it to a commercial pub, then? And what are your stats for how many self-pubs end up with a garage full of books they paid a fortune for?

Quote :

What I said here is actually pretty hard to refute: the fact that few self-publishers get contracts is not a reason against self-publishing. Because very few non-self-publishers get contracts, either.

There are very valid reasons for self-publishing. Using it as a vehicle to get a commercial contract isn't one of them.

Quote :

You're trying to "prove" that because most
people don't get their ms accepted by a commercial house, then sp isn't
the dead-end street anyone with any experience in this business knows
it is.

No, I'm not to prove any such thing. Like I said, bone up on statistics, and particularly logic.
And get with the program.

But mostly, please stop trying to worry this thing around into being what you think it is, rather than what I said.

So Stackpole, the publisher of fishing and antique gun books and stuff is still around? Good to hear. They should probably get thei website back up, though.

Google is your friend, Lin.

www.stackpolebooks.com

BTW, if sp is such a great vehicle for commercial publication, why hasn't it worked for you, yet? Why are you repeating shizniat from people with agendas when it hasn't worked for you?

I was just going to recommend it to you. Or eBay. A used book in elementary logic. It's a powerful tool for writers and people in all walks of life.

Why hasn't what worked for me? Getting published? Actually it has. Try google.

But again, you're running off on some personal tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm saying here. Drop by that other thread where you were saying you had much more important things to do that playing worrywart on forums. Take it to heart.

You got a commercial contract based on self-publishing your ms first?

You should read your posts from an uninvolved in the post point of view - they read like two roads heading in a similar direction, one made of blacktop, the other of cement. The material of each is quite appropriate for the road; but they are also different.

Lin is proposing something besides annecdotal evidence; an actual blind study to put an end to the endless debate by providing a statistical basis for factual discussion. LC is providing the very annecdotal evidence of which there are many bits and pieces to put on either side of the debate; but not statistically valid enough to draw a conclusion. Both are on the same subject, but the roads are passing by each other.

Oh boy! I can see my "explanation" is about as convoluted as the entire topic.

dkchristi wrote:

Lin is proposing something besides annecdotal evidence; an actual blind study to put an end to the endless debate by providing a statistical basis for factual discussion.

"Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile."

We gathered that from the check you were flaunting around.

And yes, I have indeed sold books to publishers based on self-published work. I didn't think that needed additional clarification, but I'm starting to learn about you.

Once again... take your own advice and use google.

And even though I realize you've lost whatever comprehension or interest you ever hand in the original premise here and are just trying to be a snag, look into learning more about stats and logic. It can't hurt.

Unfortunately, christi, like I said, a study would be pretty impossible. Just for one, how many writers submit books to publishers each year? How many self-publish? Doubt this can be found as hard information.

But there is also the more aristotelian idea that people can be led to knowledge by pure reason.

And the reason I propounded here was that it's not logically sound to say, "self-publishing is useless because few self-publishers get contracts" because, in fact, few writers of any kind get contracts.

There is also the famous "argumentum ad horticulture" that applies to the subsequent rag-chewing that has been single-handedly foisted on this thread.

LC,

You told me that you read this:

http://www.visualartsjunction.com/?p=397

I met Jeff Rivera on a teenage forum in 2004. Are you saying that this was a one off? That Jeff is one in a million and I just happened to meet this one in a million author? Isn't it more likely that he's one in a thousand? That's still better odds than the odds facing an unknown fiction author in search of a commercial publisher.

Quote :

That's still better odds than the odds facing an unknown fiction author in search of a commercial publisher.

No it isn't. Rivera obviously could write. Most self-pubs can't. They don't know they can't, though. So they see stories like this and think they can do it, too. And Lin is feeding that delusion.

That the problem with assumptions, you often make the wrong one. You have suggested in trhe past that writers should find a subject/genre with less competition than the popular genres. Had you said that, you would have been nearer the mark.

Jeff's novel is urban fiction targeted at a specific group of readers. Most writers don't do that.They write the stories they want to write and then try to get the work published. This is practically impossible, but it's the only kind of writing they are capable of doing.

A young blonde door-to-door saleswoman tried to sell me a new kitchen. When I said that we had just fitted a new kitchen, she replied. "Well, maybe you don't like it."

It's the same with telling new authors that they will never find a publisher. They still think it's possible and will tell you that JK Rowling did and John Grisham did and ...

I'm feeding nothing but your imitation of a chihuahua running down the street barking at somebody's heels.

You just don't understand what I'm saying because you're looking at through a big pair of cartoon glasses made of what you want to say. Nothing you are yapping about here has ANYTHING to do with it.

And yes, the odds are improved.
I'm begining to think that even studying logic wouldn't help you much.

The horticulture argumentum impedes.