Standards.

[icebluenothing]

Of all the myriad ways in which Life Is Horribly Unfair, one that vexes me the most is this:

Are you an artist? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? Then you're an entrepreneur who should be rewarded for your creativity. It's a long, uphill road, but we're with you all the way!

Are you a musician? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? All right! There's that punk, fighting DIY spirit! Screw the labels, man, they're nothing but leeches anyway!

Do you create comics? Do you sell your own work directly to the public? Let me buy you a drink! Indy all the way!

Are you a writer? Do you sell your own work directly to the public?

..... Ha! Loser! Not good enough to get published, huh?

Comments

[leenerella]

Seriously? Do you get that often? I'd like someone to tell Wil Wheaton that the books he self-publishes and sells out (in paper AND audio format) is an indication that he's a loser.

I think independently-produced writing will catch up to the others. It'll just take some time and some growing success stories about how people used self-publishing tools to get out there - someone needs to lead the herd to the feeding grounds, that's all.

[kespernorth.livejournal.com]

It's not just that he gets it often, it's a fact of the publishing industry. Self-publishing a work makes even small presses treat you like the lowest little bit of slime on Earth. They seriously look at it as a sign of desperation and poor quality writing, sight unseen.

[luchog.livejournal.com]

Well, considering the industry, it's not entirely unwarranted. There is quite an amazing lot of self-published crap out there. Just like there's an amazingly lot of crap music, crap comics, crap art. The only difference is, publishing crap books hasn't got the street cred that 'zines do (or at least, did in the '80s.

Add to that that it's much harder to get writing out there. Art has a long tradition of self-production. Music and comics are very easy to publish on the web. A lot of new comics start out as webcomics, and only go hard-copy when there's a sufficient readerbase; and the distro channel for music is huge, what with the number of iPods and other music players.

Unfortunately, until the e-reader market grows considerably, that won't be true for writing. On top of that, reading books is steadily losing popularity, and has been for a while.

And if that's not bad enough, there are a huge number of self-publishing scams out there; and even the legit channels are bloody expensive compared to art, music, or comics.

[m-cobweb.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you make a good point. And given the realities of the publishing industry, I don't know why self-publishing does get that reputation. (Insult to injury, it's acceptable to be a poet with a chapbook.)

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

*facepalm* I feel you there (and doubly so with the above comment; poets with chapbooks get that same "indie all the way" perk...). FWIW, considering how random the choices of major publishing houses are--and the shit that'll get printed by major labels--I've never seen it as a marker of quality.

[surlyben.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered about this issue as it relates to comics. My theory is that it has something to do with the existence of vanity presses, and the snake oil stigma they have. In comics self-publishing, the tradition is either photocopy or deal with a printer directly, and people assume you are doing one or the other. On the other hand, for self-published books, people assume vanity press with all the stigma that goes along with that.

The solution seems to be to start your own small press label. Then instead of "self-published", you can say "small press", and it's clear that you haven't been fleeced by some dubious vanity press operator.

A lesser issue is the one of being vetted by an editor. Of the examples you gave, long-form writing is the one most likely to be warrant such vetting, because of the time commitment involved in telling whether or not it's any good. Art, music, and poetry can all be judged at a glance, before you buy. A book, not so much. In the case of comics, if the writing turns out to suck, maybe you still like the art.

[luchog.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's one I forgot. Books are much bigger time investment than the rest. And few people will put in that much time, let alone money, on something unknown.

[inaurolillium.livejournal.com]

I know this is an old entry, but I just noticed you had friended me and was flipping through your entries.
And to you I say, small but increasing numbers of published SF/F authors are selling some of their writing to the public directly or publishing online and accepting donations. Elizabeth Bear (who took home a Hugo last year), Emma Bull, Will Shetterly, Sarah Monette, Steven Brust, Holly Black, Catherynne M. Valente, Leah Bobet . . . maybe not all of the cool kids are doing it yet, but selling direct is most certainly not reserved for those who can't get published any longer.
I hope that gives you a little ammo next time somebody tries to tell you that.
Of course, now you're published, so you might care less. But there it is.