It is difficult to separate vanity publishing from self-publishing. Where do you draw the line between the two?
Vanity publishers often insist that what they offer is serviced self-publishing. For a fee (often a high one) they offer services like editing, typesetting and design: the problem is that there are some very useful self-publishing service providers out there which also charge for those services but which don’t count as vanity publishers.
The imprint under which you’re published provides a useful (but not infallible) guide. If you pay anything towards your own publication, either up-front by way of fees for editing, an ISBN or printing, or at the back end of the equation by buying copies of your own books for resale, then if the book has the name of your own publishing company on the imprint page it’s likely that you self-published it, while if it has the name of the service-provider as the imprint you are definitely vanity-published.
And, while there’s nothing inherently wrong with paying for expert help, remember that real, commercial publishers provide everything at no cost to the writer: it's part of the package when they agree to publish a book. If you do hand money over to anyone, make sure that the people you’re paying really are experts in their field, are going to add real value to your book: and aren’t just charging you a high price for help you don’t really need.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
With Apologies To Angelas Everywhere
There’s a certain sort of writer that I’ve met a lot of over the years: I’ll call her Angela.
Writing means a lot to Angela. She considers it a form of high art: an expression of her true nature. She keeps her writing secret for a long time and when she finally lets her friend Beverly read it she’s reduced to tears when Beverly suggests that it might need a little revision.
Angela still has confidence in her work, and after much thought she decides that the problem lies with Beverly, for making such hurtful comments. Beverly has to be wrong, Angela insists: especially when Angela discovers Caroline’s writing group where everyone tells her how wonderful her work is.
So when Angela starts to submit her work to professional markets and gets form rejections (or, worse still, rejections which tell her that she’s just not good enough), she knows who to believe: her friends from Caroline’s writing group who have told her, over and over, that mistakes don’t matter, and that unknowns never get published unless they’ve got connections.
The one thing Angela never hears from her friends at Caroline’s writing group is that her work isn’t good enough. Which is a shame: because if she understood that she might put the effort into improving it, and eventually get it published.
Writing means a lot to Angela. She considers it a form of high art: an expression of her true nature. She keeps her writing secret for a long time and when she finally lets her friend Beverly read it she’s reduced to tears when Beverly suggests that it might need a little revision.
Angela still has confidence in her work, and after much thought she decides that the problem lies with Beverly, for making such hurtful comments. Beverly has to be wrong, Angela insists: especially when Angela discovers Caroline’s writing group where everyone tells her how wonderful her work is.
So when Angela starts to submit her work to professional markets and gets form rejections (or, worse still, rejections which tell her that she’s just not good enough), she knows who to believe: her friends from Caroline’s writing group who have told her, over and over, that mistakes don’t matter, and that unknowns never get published unless they’ve got connections.
The one thing Angela never hears from her friends at Caroline’s writing group is that her work isn’t good enough. Which is a shame: because if she understood that she might put the effort into improving it, and eventually get it published.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Bookselling: Chains And Independents
Bookselling is dominated by the big chains. On the UK high street, Waterstones dominates; online, Amazon is king in sales of both new and second-hand books following its 2008 acquisition of Abe Books, the brilliant second-hand bookselling website which lists sellers from all over the world.
Because of their huge buying power, not only do the big chains command higher discounts from publishers than are available to the smaller, independent booksellsers: they also directly influence publishers’ decisions. If buyers for the chains don’t like book covers, the covers will be redesigned; if they don’t like blurbs, they’ll be rewritten; and if, ultimately, they don’t like certain writers, then those writers are unlikely to be commissioned again.
Bookselling chains don’t make their income purely from book sales: they also get paid to run promotions. Consider all those books on the three-for-two tables: each one is there because their publishers have paid for their inclusion. And this subsidiary source of income doesn’t stop there: a few years ago there was an outcry when the public discovered that positions on Waterstones’ “bestsellers” chart were all bought and paid for by the publishers concerned. Since then, little has changed: the chart is still money-driven but at least the fuss has died down now. I’d love to know what sort of proportion of the chains’ income is provided directly from bookselling, and indirectly from paid-for promotions, but I don’t suppose they’ll volunteer the information.
There’s a cost for all this, of course: chain bookstores all seem to offer the same chart-led stock, and don’t often carry the quirkier, more risky books: the self-published titles with the limited markets; the poetry, small-press titles or anthologies. Which is, for me, where the real gold lies. So next time you visit an independent bookseller and wonder why it doesn’t offer cut-price books, or run many promotions, don’t think harshly of it. Have a good poke around and discover those odd little books that you won’t find anywhere else. Buy a big bag full of them, and be grateful the shop is still open. Because the independent bookshop is at risk, and needs our full support.
Because of their huge buying power, not only do the big chains command higher discounts from publishers than are available to the smaller, independent booksellsers: they also directly influence publishers’ decisions. If buyers for the chains don’t like book covers, the covers will be redesigned; if they don’t like blurbs, they’ll be rewritten; and if, ultimately, they don’t like certain writers, then those writers are unlikely to be commissioned again.
Bookselling chains don’t make their income purely from book sales: they also get paid to run promotions. Consider all those books on the three-for-two tables: each one is there because their publishers have paid for their inclusion. And this subsidiary source of income doesn’t stop there: a few years ago there was an outcry when the public discovered that positions on Waterstones’ “bestsellers” chart were all bought and paid for by the publishers concerned. Since then, little has changed: the chart is still money-driven but at least the fuss has died down now. I’d love to know what sort of proportion of the chains’ income is provided directly from bookselling, and indirectly from paid-for promotions, but I don’t suppose they’ll volunteer the information.
There’s a cost for all this, of course: chain bookstores all seem to offer the same chart-led stock, and don’t often carry the quirkier, more risky books: the self-published titles with the limited markets; the poetry, small-press titles or anthologies. Which is, for me, where the real gold lies. So next time you visit an independent bookseller and wonder why it doesn’t offer cut-price books, or run many promotions, don’t think harshly of it. Have a good poke around and discover those odd little books that you won’t find anywhere else. Buy a big bag full of them, and be grateful the shop is still open. Because the independent bookshop is at risk, and needs our full support.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Why Work Is Rejected
Over the last three days I’ve read commenters on several blogs and message boards insisting that the race, gender or political affiliation is the single reason certain writers get rejected, regardless of the quality of their writing.
Under the current submissions system, writers send their work in to agents and/or editors; then their work is read, and accepted or rejected because it’s either good enough or it isn’t. Being good enough includes all sorts of things: the quality of the writing, the story, what competition is out there, and the likely market. And unless the submission was made to a niche publisher, this judgement has nothing to do with the age, colour or gender of the author concerned.
Last Autumn, one of my books was rejected by a Muslim editor. Did I react by ranting that this was religious discrimination, because I’m non-Muslim? Or racial discrimination, because I’m white and the editor wasn’t? Or discrimination because I’m a woman and the editor is a man? Nope: his gender and religion had nothing to do with the rejection. I thanked him for his time, had a look at my writing and realised that he was right: my work wasn’t suitable for publication by the company he worked for.
Writing is judged purely on its quality by editors, sales teams and publishers, who themselves belong to all ethnicities, religions and genders. They have little or no idea of the ethnicity or religious beliefs of the writers they’re considering unless the writers choose to tell them: so how can anyone logically insist that that’s why they reject some writers and accept others?
When submissions are rejected by all who see them, chances are the writing, premise or story just isn’t good enough to be published. It’s not good to hear that about something you’ve worked hard on for a long time, but you can learn from the experience: write something better that won’t get rejected. Move on. And for goodness’ sake, don’t try to blame others for your own weak work.
Under the current submissions system, writers send their work in to agents and/or editors; then their work is read, and accepted or rejected because it’s either good enough or it isn’t. Being good enough includes all sorts of things: the quality of the writing, the story, what competition is out there, and the likely market. And unless the submission was made to a niche publisher, this judgement has nothing to do with the age, colour or gender of the author concerned.
Last Autumn, one of my books was rejected by a Muslim editor. Did I react by ranting that this was religious discrimination, because I’m non-Muslim? Or racial discrimination, because I’m white and the editor wasn’t? Or discrimination because I’m a woman and the editor is a man? Nope: his gender and religion had nothing to do with the rejection. I thanked him for his time, had a look at my writing and realised that he was right: my work wasn’t suitable for publication by the company he worked for.
Writing is judged purely on its quality by editors, sales teams and publishers, who themselves belong to all ethnicities, religions and genders. They have little or no idea of the ethnicity or religious beliefs of the writers they’re considering unless the writers choose to tell them: so how can anyone logically insist that that’s why they reject some writers and accept others?
When submissions are rejected by all who see them, chances are the writing, premise or story just isn’t good enough to be published. It’s not good to hear that about something you’ve worked hard on for a long time, but you can learn from the experience: write something better that won’t get rejected. Move on. And for goodness’ sake, don’t try to blame others for your own weak work.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Authonomy Signing Update
Two days ago, I blogged about the three Authonomy authors who have been signed to HarperCollins. One of the books signed was represented by Andrew Lownie (for whom I have a very soft spot--he's a wonderful agent) and I wrote,
The ever-vigilant Sally Zigmond has this morning spotted this comment from the man himself over on Galleycat:
(Now, if Sally could just find out for me if the authors of the other two books are represented, I'd be very grateful indeed.)
ETA: Here's a news story which explains how HarperCollins made its offer for the book in December, nearly a month before Authonomy announced the sale.
...it's probable that they were picked up following Lownie's submission of their book to HarperCollins, rather than through the Authonomy site.
The ever-vigilant Sally Zigmond has this morning spotted this comment from the man himself over on Galleycat:
My agency submitted Never Say Die by Melanie Davies and ghosted by Lynne Barrett-Lee in the normal way. The fact the authors had put it on Authonomy may have helped in Collins's decision but the editor was only aware of the script being on Authonomy after the submission. Andrew LownieGod, I'm good.
(Now, if Sally could just find out for me if the authors of the other two books are represented, I'd be very grateful indeed.)
ETA: Here's a news story which explains how HarperCollins made its offer for the book in December, nearly a month before Authonomy announced the sale.
What Writers Earn (Part II)
In 2005, the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society commissioned a study of authors’ earnings. Its findings* make depressing reading, as did those from a similar study carried out by the Society of Authors in 2000. The ALCS study established the following statistics for UK writers.
The top 10% of UK authors earned more than 50% of total reported income, while the bottom 50% earned less than 10% of total reported income. Which means that for every £100 earned through writing in the UK, the top-earning 10% shared out £50 between them, while the lowest-earning half of all writers had to make do with sharing out just £10 between them all. The remaining £40 was shared between the 40% of writers who occupied that relatively middle-to-high-end income bracket.
60% of people who considered themselves “professional authors” cannot support themselves from writing alone.
If you want to earn a living wage you’d be better off working as an electrician: their average earnings (mean/median) were £23,985/£23,251 compared to writers average earnings of £16,531/£4,000 for the same period.
In the five years from 2000 to 2005, the average reported income for writers dropped from £16,600/£6,333 to £16,531/£4,000.
Only 20.3% of UK writers earn all their living from writing—which is just as well when you consider the annual average income levels.
I think I’m going to retrain to be an electrician.
*The link takes you to a page where you can download a PDF of the study's findings.
The top 10% of UK authors earned more than 50% of total reported income, while the bottom 50% earned less than 10% of total reported income. Which means that for every £100 earned through writing in the UK, the top-earning 10% shared out £50 between them, while the lowest-earning half of all writers had to make do with sharing out just £10 between them all. The remaining £40 was shared between the 40% of writers who occupied that relatively middle-to-high-end income bracket.
60% of people who considered themselves “professional authors” cannot support themselves from writing alone.
If you want to earn a living wage you’d be better off working as an electrician: their average earnings (mean/median) were £23,985/£23,251 compared to writers average earnings of £16,531/£4,000 for the same period.
In the five years from 2000 to 2005, the average reported income for writers dropped from £16,600/£6,333 to £16,531/£4,000.
Only 20.3% of UK writers earn all their living from writing—which is just as well when you consider the annual average income levels.
I think I’m going to retrain to be an electrician.
*The link takes you to a page where you can download a PDF of the study's findings.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
How To Write A Synopsis
The job of the synopsis is to tell the story briefly and coherently; to outline the ups and downs of your story, and to introduce your characters and to demonstrate their appeal.
Your synopsis has to be good, because it has a lot of work to do: you’re going to use it to sell your book to an agent; your agent will then use it to sell your book to an editor; and your editor will then use it to sell the book to their publishers and sales people.
When I write fiction I don’t outline in advance, and instead use Word's endnote feature to attach a brief endnote to each and every scene as I write it. When I review my work, a quick read through those endnotes reveals most plot-holes and continuity problems which are then relatively easy to fix; and it provides me with a lump of text to base my synopsis on. But I still find synopses incredibly difficult to write, and struggle every time.
Thank goodness, then, for crime-writer Beth Anderson, who provides some very useful information about synopsis-writing on her website. Countless people have been saved from synopsis-writing hell by her great advice—including me.
Your synopsis has to be good, because it has a lot of work to do: you’re going to use it to sell your book to an agent; your agent will then use it to sell your book to an editor; and your editor will then use it to sell the book to their publishers and sales people.
When I write fiction I don’t outline in advance, and instead use Word's endnote feature to attach a brief endnote to each and every scene as I write it. When I review my work, a quick read through those endnotes reveals most plot-holes and continuity problems which are then relatively easy to fix; and it provides me with a lump of text to base my synopsis on. But I still find synopses incredibly difficult to write, and struggle every time.
Thank goodness, then, for crime-writer Beth Anderson, who provides some very useful information about synopsis-writing on her website. Countless people have been saved from synopsis-writing hell by her great advice—including me.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Authonomy Authors Sign With HarperCollins
In a move perfectly timed to complement my blog post from earlier today, Authonomy has just announced that HarperCollins has signed three of its authors.
Steven Dunne, who had previously self-published his detective thriller, The Reaper, gets a two-book deal; Miranda Dickinson, author of a romantic comedy called Coffee At Kowalski's, has a three-book deal; and Melanie Davies and Lynne Barratt-Lee have signed up their co-written memoir Never Say Die.
It's not made clear on the Authonomy blog if these signings came as a direct result of the authors' presence on Authonomy: mention is made of Davies' and Barratt-Lee's representation by literary agent extraordinaire Andrew Lownie, so it's probable that they were picked up following Lownie's submission of their book to HarperCollins, rather than through the Authonomy site. But I'm sure that full details will emerge over the coming weeks.
I wish all four writers the best of success with their books, and will be watching their progress closely.
Steven Dunne, who had previously self-published his detective thriller, The Reaper, gets a two-book deal; Miranda Dickinson, author of a romantic comedy called Coffee At Kowalski's, has a three-book deal; and Melanie Davies and Lynne Barratt-Lee have signed up their co-written memoir Never Say Die.
It's not made clear on the Authonomy blog if these signings came as a direct result of the authors' presence on Authonomy: mention is made of Davies' and Barratt-Lee's representation by literary agent extraordinaire Andrew Lownie, so it's probable that they were picked up following Lownie's submission of their book to HarperCollins, rather than through the Authonomy site. But I'm sure that full details will emerge over the coming weeks.
I wish all four writers the best of success with their books, and will be watching their progress closely.
Manuscript Display Sites
There are all sorts of manuscripts display sites available on the internet, like the infamous YouWriteOn, and HarperCollins’ Authonomy. Anyone can register with these sites and download a chunk of their work which might then be reviewed by other members; in return, you review their work and everyone gets a little feedback.
Both YouWriteOn and Authonomy run a rankings scheme whereby each month the ten most highly-scored pieces of work are read by editors and/or agents, and offered criticisms. This is an opportunity not to be sniffed at: I’ve read several of the professional critiques alongside the displayed work and they all offered good, solid advice which the writers would be wise to act on.
There is a downside, though. In order to attract enough reader-attention to make it to the top ten, Authonomy writers have to network their socks off—and that’s very time-consuming: frankly, I’d rather spend that time writing and have my agent work on getting it seen by the right editors; while over at YouWriteOn there have been accusations of vote-rigging, and some writers claim not to have received the editorial reports that they were promised.
Never mind, say the members: there’s still a chance that the books will get seen by an agent or an editor trawling the site, looking for talent. After all, the review process ensures that the work is of a much higher standard than most of the slush-pile, so they’re bound to be looking.
Well—no. The review process does improve the work but there are several limiting factors working here. The only people offering advice to the majority of the members are the other members who, while perfectly literate, tend not to be very experienced writers and so some of the advice that they offer is of limited value. In many cases, the criticism they offer doesn’t get beyond the level of pointing out errors in punctuation, grammar or spelling; and there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of the stringent structural work that most books require. Structural editing is made almost impossible by the medium in which the work is displayed: it’s incredibly difficult as an editor to have a good impact on a full manuscript if you’re only considering a short extract from it.
But the biggest reason that agents and editors are unlikely to plough through the work that is on offer at such manuscript display sites is that these people already have far too much slush of their own. Every day, new submissions drop on their desks in far greater quantities than can ever be published. Reading through their own slush is bad enough: why would they want to go and read through everyone else’s?
Writer Beware has blogged about Authonomy, and this particular post provides a very useful history of manuscript display sites (make sure you read the comments to get the full value).
Both YouWriteOn and Authonomy run a rankings scheme whereby each month the ten most highly-scored pieces of work are read by editors and/or agents, and offered criticisms. This is an opportunity not to be sniffed at: I’ve read several of the professional critiques alongside the displayed work and they all offered good, solid advice which the writers would be wise to act on.
There is a downside, though. In order to attract enough reader-attention to make it to the top ten, Authonomy writers have to network their socks off—and that’s very time-consuming: frankly, I’d rather spend that time writing and have my agent work on getting it seen by the right editors; while over at YouWriteOn there have been accusations of vote-rigging, and some writers claim not to have received the editorial reports that they were promised.
Never mind, say the members: there’s still a chance that the books will get seen by an agent or an editor trawling the site, looking for talent. After all, the review process ensures that the work is of a much higher standard than most of the slush-pile, so they’re bound to be looking.
Well—no. The review process does improve the work but there are several limiting factors working here. The only people offering advice to the majority of the members are the other members who, while perfectly literate, tend not to be very experienced writers and so some of the advice that they offer is of limited value. In many cases, the criticism they offer doesn’t get beyond the level of pointing out errors in punctuation, grammar or spelling; and there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of the stringent structural work that most books require. Structural editing is made almost impossible by the medium in which the work is displayed: it’s incredibly difficult as an editor to have a good impact on a full manuscript if you’re only considering a short extract from it.
But the biggest reason that agents and editors are unlikely to plough through the work that is on offer at such manuscript display sites is that these people already have far too much slush of their own. Every day, new submissions drop on their desks in far greater quantities than can ever be published. Reading through their own slush is bad enough: why would they want to go and read through everyone else’s?
Writer Beware has blogged about Authonomy, and this particular post provides a very useful history of manuscript display sites (make sure you read the comments to get the full value).
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Congratulations To Victoria Strauss And Writer Beware!
The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America has awarded Victoria Strauss its 2009 Service Award in recognition of her work at Writer Beware (Ann Crispin, the other half of Writer Beware, has not been overlooked as she won the award a few years ago).
In the ten years since Writer Beware was founded, Victoria has revealed the realities of vanity publishers, scam agents and foolish publishing schemes to so many writers; and over and over again she's shown how to behave with dignity and wit in the face of rudeness, denials and disbelief. All this while writing her own novels, and upholding the high standards of respect and professionalism on the Bewares board of Absolute Write.
She's also found the time to encourage and support writers like me. I offer my most sincere congratulations to Victoria for this long-overdue award.
In the ten years since Writer Beware was founded, Victoria has revealed the realities of vanity publishers, scam agents and foolish publishing schemes to so many writers; and over and over again she's shown how to behave with dignity and wit in the face of rudeness, denials and disbelief. All this while writing her own novels, and upholding the high standards of respect and professionalism on the Bewares board of Absolute Write.
She's also found the time to encourage and support writers like me. I offer my most sincere congratulations to Victoria for this long-overdue award.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Query Blasting: The Scattergun Approach
There are all sorts of organisations out there which will, for a fee, send your query to agents or editors, or your press release to newspapers, TV stations and the like. They usually do what they promise, and e-mail your information out to all the names on their mailing lists—and those lists can be vast, with tens of thousands of names on them. But what is the usual outcome of such a scattergun approach?
Well, first, you pay for their services. Then they send out your information (and if they've written your press release or query letter for you, they'll have charged you extra for this and will probably have written a formulaic, template-based piece which will have a very limited effect); and then—nothing.
You're unlikely to see good results, or to even make back the money that you paid them. Because the queries that they send out on your behalf will be generic, one-size-fits-all; they're not going to be personalised, addressed to individual people, or even targeted to appropriate agents or editors who represent your genre; and the press releases will go out to all their media contacts regardless of whether you're promoting a book about train-spotting in 1920s Sweden or a contemporary romance novel with an S&M twist.
Let me remind you: each time you send anything out, you have to target the right people. If you had a problem with your phone bill, you wouldn't just write to every person in every phone company you could find, would you? Regardless of what country you, or they, are in? No. You'd write to the customer services department of your phone provider, and tell them exactly what the problem is. It's the same with queries, submissions, media packs, press releases, and review copies. You must send them to the right people, otherwise the whole exercise is a pointless waste of everyone's time and money.
Well, first, you pay for their services. Then they send out your information (and if they've written your press release or query letter for you, they'll have charged you extra for this and will probably have written a formulaic, template-based piece which will have a very limited effect); and then—nothing.
You're unlikely to see good results, or to even make back the money that you paid them. Because the queries that they send out on your behalf will be generic, one-size-fits-all; they're not going to be personalised, addressed to individual people, or even targeted to appropriate agents or editors who represent your genre; and the press releases will go out to all their media contacts regardless of whether you're promoting a book about train-spotting in 1920s Sweden or a contemporary romance novel with an S&M twist.
Let me remind you: each time you send anything out, you have to target the right people. If you had a problem with your phone bill, you wouldn't just write to every person in every phone company you could find, would you? Regardless of what country you, or they, are in? No. You'd write to the customer services department of your phone provider, and tell them exactly what the problem is. It's the same with queries, submissions, media packs, press releases, and review copies. You must send them to the right people, otherwise the whole exercise is a pointless waste of everyone's time and money.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Paying Back Your Advance
Very occasionally, a publisher will ask a writer it has under contract to pay back the advance that was paid.
This might happen if, for example, the deadline passed months ago but the writer still shows no sign of submitting a finished manuscript; or if the writer submits a vampire novel about World War I instead of the non-fiction book about the history of cockle fishing off the Welsh coast that he was contracted to write.
If a book is published but fails to sell in any significant numbers, though, the advance is the author's to keep. Even if the book doesn't earn out. Despite what many vanity presses insist.
This might happen if, for example, the deadline passed months ago but the writer still shows no sign of submitting a finished manuscript; or if the writer submits a vampire novel about World War I instead of the non-fiction book about the history of cockle fishing off the Welsh coast that he was contracted to write.
If a book is published but fails to sell in any significant numbers, though, the advance is the author's to keep. Even if the book doesn't earn out. Despite what many vanity presses insist.
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Only Celebrities Get Published
There's no doubt that a nice fat dose of fame will help you get your book published: but that's not the only route into publishing.
The majority of books which are published by mainstream, commercial publishers still come from people who are relative unknowns. While I'll agree that it can be difficult to get your book published, the root of that difficulty lies in writing a good enough book, and not in circumnavigating the complexities of the publishing industry.
You don't have to be an established author to get published, either. If you follow that particular myth to its logical conclusion, the fallacy is easy to see: even JK Rowling was an unknown once.
The majority of books which are published by mainstream, commercial publishers still come from people who are relative unknowns. While I'll agree that it can be difficult to get your book published, the root of that difficulty lies in writing a good enough book, and not in circumnavigating the complexities of the publishing industry.
You don't have to be an established author to get published, either. If you follow that particular myth to its logical conclusion, the fallacy is easy to see: even JK Rowling was an unknown once.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Competitions And Anthologies
There's a failsafe way to make money out of writers.
Run a short story or poetry competition, and attract as many entries as you can: the internet makes it easy to find writers' groups and message boards where you can advertise your competitions for free. You don't even have to charge an entry fee (although you can if you think they'll pay): just get those entries in, as quickly as you can.
You don't need to read the entries: it's quantity you want here, not quality. Just bundle all of them altogether into a single anthology, stick an ISBN onto the cover, and download it to a POD provider. And that's all your editing and production work done.
The marketing on this project is very easy too: all you have to do is tell all the entrants that they've won a place in the competition, and that their work will appear in your prizewinners’ anthology.
Add the anthology to Amazon, and you're away. Make sure you price it qute high, to maximise your return; then wait for the orders to come in. Chances are that most of the people who are included in the anthology will buy themselves at least one copy; probably more. And each copy that's bought brings in more cash for you, for very little effort.
As I said, it's a failsafe way to make money out of writers. It's just not a very nice one.
Run a short story or poetry competition, and attract as many entries as you can: the internet makes it easy to find writers' groups and message boards where you can advertise your competitions for free. You don't even have to charge an entry fee (although you can if you think they'll pay): just get those entries in, as quickly as you can.
You don't need to read the entries: it's quantity you want here, not quality. Just bundle all of them altogether into a single anthology, stick an ISBN onto the cover, and download it to a POD provider. And that's all your editing and production work done.
The marketing on this project is very easy too: all you have to do is tell all the entrants that they've won a place in the competition, and that their work will appear in your prizewinners’ anthology.
Add the anthology to Amazon, and you're away. Make sure you price it qute high, to maximise your return; then wait for the orders to come in. Chances are that most of the people who are included in the anthology will buy themselves at least one copy; probably more. And each copy that's bought brings in more cash for you, for very little effort.
As I said, it's a failsafe way to make money out of writers. It's just not a very nice one.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Unsolicited Manuscripts
Most of the big publishers, and an increasing proportion of the smaller ones, state that they’ll no longer accept unsolicited manuscripts.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t submit to them: it just means that they have to solicit your manuscripts before they’ll even consider reading it.
One way to arrange this is to write a concise, appropriate and brilliant query letter. Tell them a little about your book: make them desperate to read it. If you can spark their interest sufficiently they’ll ask if they can read more and suddenly, your manuscript will be solicited.
Note that this won’t work with publishers who refuse unagented work: to be read by those publishers, you need to have an agent of your own. But it can open several doors that seem at first glance to be tightly locked shut.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t submit to them: it just means that they have to solicit your manuscripts before they’ll even consider reading it.
One way to arrange this is to write a concise, appropriate and brilliant query letter. Tell them a little about your book: make them desperate to read it. If you can spark their interest sufficiently they’ll ask if they can read more and suddenly, your manuscript will be solicited.
Note that this won’t work with publishers who refuse unagented work: to be read by those publishers, you need to have an agent of your own. But it can open several doors that seem at first glance to be tightly locked shut.
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Fingers Crossed
I've started a new blog called Greyling Bay.
I'd welcome a few submissions to get things started. I do hope it works!
I'd welcome a few submissions to get things started. I do hope it works!
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Do Your Research!
If you want to be published well, you have to start off by doing plenty of research.
Do your research before you start writing, so you know if your book has commercial potential and if you really know what you think you know, or if it's actually all assumption and myth.
Do your research before you start editing, so you can distinguish between things like ellipses, dashes and hyphens, and know when and how to use them: otherwise your work will be sloppy and unpolished, and it won't impress anyone.
Do your research before you start submitting, so you only send out to reputable agents and editors and avoid the ill-intentioned and ill-informed who will mislead you, and cost you time, money and tears. Remember that nice isn't the same as good, and that in publishing, experience counts.
Do more research before you start submitting so you only submit to agents and editors who work in your genre and are accepting submissions.
Do your research before you agree to anything, to make sure you're not restricting yourself uneccessarily: I particularly dislike unlimited exclusives.
Do your research before you sign anything, so you don't end up committed to an inappropriate agent, or tied to a poor publishing contract.
Do your research before you take anyone's word for anything, especially on the internet, where new self-appointed experts (like me!) pop up every ten minutes.
And finally, although it's wise to be cautious and research is invaluable, not everything is black and white and just like writing, publishing isn't a one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no endeavour. There will always be exceptions to every rule: just make sure that you learn to separate the new-and-exciting from the old-and-scammy, and the creative-risk-taking from the foolhardy-and-dangerous.
Do your research before you start writing, so you know if your book has commercial potential and if you really know what you think you know, or if it's actually all assumption and myth.
Do your research before you start editing, so you can distinguish between things like ellipses, dashes and hyphens, and know when and how to use them: otherwise your work will be sloppy and unpolished, and it won't impress anyone.
Do your research before you start submitting, so you only send out to reputable agents and editors and avoid the ill-intentioned and ill-informed who will mislead you, and cost you time, money and tears. Remember that nice isn't the same as good, and that in publishing, experience counts.
Do more research before you start submitting so you only submit to agents and editors who work in your genre and are accepting submissions.
Do your research before you agree to anything, to make sure you're not restricting yourself uneccessarily: I particularly dislike unlimited exclusives.
Do your research before you sign anything, so you don't end up committed to an inappropriate agent, or tied to a poor publishing contract.
Do your research before you take anyone's word for anything, especially on the internet, where new self-appointed experts (like me!) pop up every ten minutes.
And finally, although it's wise to be cautious and research is invaluable, not everything is black and white and just like writing, publishing isn't a one-size-fits-all, yes-or-no endeavour. There will always be exceptions to every rule: just make sure that you learn to separate the new-and-exciting from the old-and-scammy, and the creative-risk-taking from the foolhardy-and-dangerous.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Happy New Year!
Well, here we are just a day and a half into 2009 and already this year I've heard about three new publishing companies that insist they're out to help writers, and will probably only mop up their first rights along with a big wad of cash, and do little or nothing to really help with sales... it never ends.
Meanwhile, Sally Quilford has revealed the secret of successful writing over on her blog: don't give up. She's right, you know.
Meanwhile, Sally Quilford has revealed the secret of successful writing over on her blog: don't give up. She's right, you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)