Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Writing
In reply to the discussion: Okay, what does this mean to us as writers. [View all]WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)26. Exceptions to the Rule
Last edited Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:59 AM - Edit history (2)
"I know a number of full-time authors in my position, and we're doing fine in this so-called old school of publishing."And I congratulate you for that. I am also one of those authors. My average yearly income is about $100K when all is said and done. But when I started self-publishing, I made that $100K in three months. Straight royalties. No advances. And my books are still earning. Many of my friends, who had day jobs, were able to quit them and concentrate on writing full time.
That said, MOST traditionally published authors start out with advances in the $5K to $15K range per book. They're usually locked into a two-book deal, an exclusivity clause in their contracts, and those two books will not be released until a year or even two after they receive that advance. Even authors getting a second contract (and that's not guaranteed) make advances only slightly higher. So now we're talking four years at say, if they're lucky, $30K to $40K with no guarantee that they'll earn out their advance. That's $30K to $40K spread out over those four years. I doubt many of them are making a living through books.
What you and I manage to earn is not even remotely close to what most traditionally published authors earn. We are the lucky ones. To say anything else is disingenuous at best and easily proven wrong by the facts.
"I can think of a number of good authors who started off traditionally published (and whose talents were obviously recognized by the Establishment) who later moved into self-publishing for a variety of reasons. But what about some names of brilliant writers who started off self-published and stayed there?"
I listed names that I think we can all agree on (to some extent) as "great authors," so, of course most of them are either dead or from a while back.
The self-publishing revolution is currently in its infancy, and there are plenty of websites pointing to new, untested authors who are selling books like crazy. There is one website partially devoted to self-publishing successes and lists dozens of authors who have sold in excess of 50,000 books in a year or less. Even in the traditionally publishing world that would be considered a success. And many of those authors have never had traditional publishing deals.
Will they ever be considered masters of their craft? It's far too early to tell. They obviously have a lot of readers. But ask me again in about thirty years. And during that time let's keep an eye out for the new Mark Twains coming from traditional publishing as well.
What I found very interesting, however, was this line:
"The self-published authors you list above, interestingly enough, date back at least half a century ago or more, to the days when many if not most books were self-published."
Yes, there was a time when many if not most books were self-published. Yet they somehow managed to become known and revered without traditional publishing gatekeepers.
Then some middle man figured out how to handle publishing and make a killing at it, and a new industry was born. But the ONLY REASON publishers had the upper hand for so long in the modern era was because they had control of a) the printing press; b) distribution; and c) marketingwith the latter two being the most important.
The gatekeeping wasn't necessary to "protect" readers. Readers can take care of themselves. It was necessary in order to control the flow of business and give the middle men an advantage over the marketplace AND over authors. They could offer authors a pittance because authors had no control over these three essential things. It was completely artificial, and there were undoubtedly as MANY great authors who were rejected as there were terrible authors, because traditional publishing is about SALES not quality. Publishers look for what appeals to the masses and makes their business most profitable.
But thanks to technology, traditional publishers are no longer in control. Authors are now on a largely level playing field. So it would only make sense that self-publishing has seen a resurgence over the last couple years.
EDITED FOR ALL THE RIDICULOUS ERRORS/TYPOS. I NEED TO LEARN NOT TO PRESS THE SUBMIT BUTTON SO FAST.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Imagine a world with no publishers, no brick and mortar stores, and no print books
mainer
Sep 2012
#5
So if there's one other book for 99 cents, Amazon can price all books at 99 cents?
mainer
Sep 2012
#25
I get the strong feeling that I'm the only traditionally published writer posting here
mainer
Sep 2012
#22
It sounds like the pulp route is a very difficult process to break into.
Baitball Blogger
Sep 2012
#23