Blogs work well if you have books published and keep a chatty sort of diary for your readers.
The biggest problem with blogs is that if you post your complete story, novel or whatever then it is published and, particularly with stories, it is published world wide. That means magazine editors aren?t interested in taking your work from a blog unless of course you?ve done a drug users diary or something sensational and easy to sell to the public. The usual advice with blogs is to tell people only to post a fragment of their work, not the whole work.
The way to publishing a book is to write the best novel/creative fiction/non-fiction you can. If it is good enough to be published it will be. It just takes time and much research to find the right publisher. If you go the American way then you also need to work really hard to find an agent.
You have to be two people as a writer, a good creative writer and an excellent saleperson who can sell your work and yourself as worth publishing.
Yes, I agree that there is a problem: how do you give away samples without giving away the store.
Plus we have a minor disconnect here in that I was thinking non-fiction and Patrika may be thinking fiction. I was think of, for example, Riverbend, whose “Bagdad Burning” blog has established her credentials as an observer and as a writer. I was thinking a blog might be a way to establish credentials in a non-fiction field.
But even with this difference in mind, the advice to write the best you can and keep at it is of enduring validity. Thanks.
Thank you for reminding me, Fred, to include non-fiction. It is a different kiddle of fish. Even so, if you write a travel blog and then want to use the bulk of your observations in articles you will have trouble with many editors. Once something is online for the world to see then it is published as far as most editors and publisher are concerned.
Also it’s a sad fact but many editors and publishers are so darned busy with their standard submssions they don’t have time to read the hundreds of blogs online. It’s the very lucky, exceptional writer who is picked up from a blog or online writers site.
No, it’s back to the market books, researching in the book shops, writing those perfect and time consuming query letters and submitting your work.
A little more about blogs as a route to publishing: if you somehow manage to
have a (reasonably) big readership, it might help persuade a publisher that your
book will sell more copies. Otherwise, a blog might just take up too much
of your time.
In the same way, it would be easier for a newspaper columnist to sell an
idea to an agent (and to a publisher) because the columnist could get
free advertising by referring to the book in the newspaper and would
have connections, perhaps, to get it reviewed. (Even a bad review is
better (much better!) than nothing.)
I think you have to consider publishing as “selling”: firstly to an agent (for
fiction or general readership non-fiction), secondly to ordinary people.
You have to ask yourself would *I* buy this book? Think about what
books you or your acquaintances bought in the last year. Quite often the
answer is practical books (“how to” books, etc.)
People often buy fiction because other people are buying the same.
My agent in the UK told me he steers clear of fiction because “it’s a lottery”,
i.e, you just can’t say what will sell—although you can probably say
that in order for fiction to sell, the book has to win some sort of prize, or
at least be short-listed.
When people say that it’s hard to get shops to stock POD, consider
that it is also hard to get shops to stock published and reviewed books too!
There is just not enough shelf space. I could go on but it’s late…
This is interesting—I’ve wondered about self-publishing too.
About Patricka’s reply, two posts above, I wonder if she means that some publishers won’t consider a manuscript if it has already been online? And if so, then why would they do that?
If the answer to the latter question seems obvious (‘because the market for the book goes down’), here is why I think the opposite may be true: In the case of James Randi, he once mentioned that sales of his book (“A dictionary of the supernatural” or something like that) went up after he made the book available for free over the Internet. That is, the book made more money after it was available for free.
It seems to me that this case might apply to many books, not just Randi’s. Why? I don’t know of course, but people get to see that the book is good and would then want to have a nicely bound copy on their shelf. Anyway, that is why I would buy a book that can be downloaded for free.
Of course, I might be wrong (indeed, I am usually wrong), but there is my thought on the matter.
Jon
(Why did that darn smiley thing appear in my post? I can’t seem to get rid of it!)
[Webmaster edit: The offending smiley thing has been removed.]
It seems to me that this case might apply to many books, not just Randi’s. Why? I don’t know of course, but people get to see that the book is good and would then want to have a nicely bound copy on their shelf. Anyway, that is why I would buy a book that can be downloaded for free.
Many publishers and authors agree with you… Baen Books, notably. They used to have an excellent write-up of their attitude in their Baen’s Bar, but apparently it’s been deleted.
Basically, the argument said that people who actually read something online and like it usually end up buying it in paper to read again, or (better yet) buy more books by the same author.
And people who didn’t like it probaby would have made the same decision after browsing it in a bookstore.
They (one author in particular, IIRC) presented some numbers to back up the argument.
The problem is that few publishers are willing to change their stances quickly. Especially now that there are so very few big publishers left. If the trend keeps up we’ll have two superpublishers and a multitude of hole-in-the-wallers.
If I sound a little hard in this post please remember you cannot hear my voice or see my smile. I am simply presenting you with the facts of publishing life. In case you wonder how I can do this, well, I’ve been a professional writer for a number of years and yes, I am well published.
1. A sad fact of publishing online is that all the world can see it. Therefore publishers and editors around the world regard online writing as published and the writers as having used their world/all first serial right so that only reprint rights are available.
MOST publishers will not publish work already published. Online work is published so they won’t touch it.
MOST publishers are well aware of the Stephen King or Baen websites where stories, novel extracts and even writers’ complete early works were available free. They understand the theory and practise it themselves. Give away books with magazines, 2 for the price of 3 offers in bookshops and special sales are quite common.
Why are you thinking of self publishing?
Self publishing has become a cop out used by writers with a poor attitude. Self publishing is perfect for a family history for the family, a niche, how to book for a special and specific market, a local school/church centennial booklet, or a grandparents’ memoirs written for their children.
It is not the best way to go for fiction or general non-fiction.
I’m going to ask some tough questions.
What is it you want to publish?
Is there a market for it with readers?
Why would you want to self publish?
If you self publish are you aware how much time you will spend selling your book and doing the business side of selling like accounting and tax and advertising. Can you store your books? Do you know where to sell them? Are you aware that most bookshops won’t stock self published fiction or general non-fiction because they have a stigma of being shoddy and poorly written? Why? Because they were not selected and edited and produced by a genuine publishing company.
Think hard about what you want. Have you written a book that you want readers to read and enjoy? Then you need a traditional publisher. Don’t complain about them. Find out how to sell your book to one of them.
“About Patricka?s reply, two posts above, I wonder if she means that some publishers won?t consider a manuscript if it has already been online? And if so, then why would they do that?”
have now been answered. Thanks.
I suppose that the publishers have a good reason for “not touching” things that have published online. I don’t understand it, but then again, I hardly understand anything.
Also, Randi’s case, which I mentioned earlier, is a little different as the book had already been published. Just yesterday I came across another example. I wanted to get info about a book to use in my class (the AIP Style Manual, 4th edition), and I found out that they now offer it for free in PDF format. I suppose that the AIP (American Institute of Physics) and James Randi just want to get their word out and are not necessarilly in it for the money. However, I bought by AIP manual a few years ago, and I’d do it again now even though it is available for free.
A few months ago I remember hearing about some best seller that was first self-published. I can’t remember the name, or maybe I am misremembering the whole thing.
Another case comes to mind. According to the introduction to the 3rd edition of “The Elements of Style”, Will Strunk first self-published the book to use in his classes. Later a publisher took it up.
In my own case, I made an educational poster about snow crystals, and I figured that an accompanying booklet would be nice for educators and other people who want to know more about snow. So, if I ever finish it, I’ll make it available for free online. Then, hopefully, some folks will comment on it so that I can improve the thing. And then, perhaps sometime in the distant future, maybe I can seek a publisher. OK, so maybe no publisher will take it. But it is still nice to have made something useful.
Changing the topic slightly, I heard that Robert Persig tried 122 publishers or so before finding number 123, the publisher that printed his “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintanence”. Probably many people here have heard this story. Anyway, that is a hell of a lot of inquiry letters to mail out! Duncan Blanchard told me that he was prepared to send his “Snowflake Man” manuscript to 123 publishers before giving up. As it turned out, he only made it to about 85 before a publisher accepted it. Wow. I don’t think I could have lasted that long.
A few months ago I remember hearing about some best seller that was first self-published. I can’t remember the name, or maybe I am misremembering the whole thing.
Probably Paolini’s “Eragon.”
Of course there are exceptions, but in general it is difficult to be successful through self-publishing.
Then again, it is difficult to be successful in writing at all!
Jon, your snowflake booklet is a good example of a niche book for a special and specific market, and yes, self publishing works well then providing you use an editor who will spot the errors for you.
Yes, there have been, I think five books picked up from on-line self publishing. In young Paolini’s case there was a very well planned and carefully organised publicity drive by his family. But publishers don’t have time to read online stuff. They are overloaded with submissions.
Still the best way to get published is to write a good publishable book and learn how to sell it through that horror the one page query letter!
Sorry this is a bit late, but better late than never, right?
Jon Nelson - 01 March 2006 02:48 PM
(Why did that darn smiley thing appear in my post? I can’t seem to get rid of it!)
There should be a checkbox labeled “Enable smileys in this post” just above the buttons for previewing and submitting posts. If this box is checked, certain combinations of characters will result in a smilely face or some other icon. Removing the check will prevent that from happening.
Continuing—reviving?—this dead discussion about how blogs are not a route to “real publishing,” I note that _Baghdad Burning_, which is a compilation of Riverbend’s blog reports, has been short-listed for the Samuel Johnson Prize- a prestigious, British award for non-fiction.
Of course, we are unlikely to repeat this feat, but it is an anomaly worth mentioning.
