# Anyone self-published on Kindle?



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 30, 2011)

Well?

Was it good for you etc?

I'm thinking about it. Looks like a better deal than going through established print publishers now.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 1, 2011)

You should never pay to publish your work.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 1, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You should never pay to publish your work.



If only they will listen...


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 1, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You should never pay to publish your work.


tell Walt Whitman that.

and everybody who posts on here (it costs time ok).


----------



## Riklet (Dec 1, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You should never pay to publish your work.



You mean like Amazon... taking a cut? Unlike a normal publisher who rarely takes a cut, they are just  nice peeps  dumb...

My father has a book self published on kindle, but he has been a bit useless and lazy at promoting it/sending it off for review, even though he's a 'proper' published author.  The benefits are more than just financial.  He submitted his book for publication and it was up in 24 hours.  Times that by about 300 if you go through conventional publishers, and that's if they want to publish you at all.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 1, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You should never pay to publish your work.



What a moronic thing to say. So no indie band should ever put out their own albums on their own labels, paying for it themselves? Riiight.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 1, 2011)

please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't ever publish anything, stan


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> please <snip>please don't ever publish anything, stan


You think he'll listen to anyone when he's already half talked himself into doing it?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 1, 2011)

Greebo said:


> You think he'll listen to anyone when he's already half talked himself into doing it?



Oi!

It's a fucking good book, and Kindle costs nothing. The publishers I have submitted to have expressed interest, but fuck - they are slow to get to action. Can't be arsed chasing them, so Kindle looks a good route to go.

I know someone who sells her book (previously published in print) on Kindle for just 60 Cents a go (as much as she would get from print publishers) and does very well. Relatively speaking.

I want to see things move much more quickly before some tosser 'adopts' my idea.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oi!
> 
> It's a fucking good book, and Kindle costs nothing. The publishers I have submitted to have expressed interest, but fuck - they are slow to get to action. Can't be arsed chasing them, so Kindle looks a good route to go.
> 
> ...


Did I say anything against your book?  All I said was that you'd already half-talked yourself into doing this.  Right now I dspn;t need yougoing off on one at me.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 1, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Did I say anything against your book? All I said was that you'd already half-talked yourself into doing this. Right now I dspn;t need yougoing off on one at me.





You're far too sensitive


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> You're far too sensitive


You have no idea - at the moment, nerves are about a foot outside of my skin.  Ah well at least no nausea.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 1, 2011)

Greebo said:


> You have no idea - at the moment, nerves are about a foot outside of my skin. Ah well at least no nausea.



Sorry.

Have you tried red wine?

I'm still rotten ill with nausea. Wish my stomach could take red wine.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 1, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Have you tried red wine?
> 
> I'm still rotten ill with nausea. Wish my stomach could take red wine.


I'ts okay, you weren;t to know.  You'd best keep the red wine for ewhen you feel well enough.  Coffee and shoclaote biscuits will do fine for now here


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 2, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> expressed interest


bless.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't ever publish anything, stan



Stan is a true genius compared to some existing self-published 'authors' out there!
There are so many self-proclaimed 'poets,' 'intellects,' and even 'professors,' at least with Stan, you know it'll be Stan...


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> Stan is a true genius compared to some existing self-published 'authors' out there!
> There are so many self-proclaimed 'poets,' 'intellects,' and even 'professors,' at least with Stan, you know it'll be Stan...


thing is there are also lots of published authors whose stuff is Awful. Just because someone has convinced a commissioning editor to take on a book for some reason is no guarantee of any quality, and just because a commissioning editor hasn't taken on a book doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Of course there is more of a filter if something has been properly published so you have a better chance of reading something that isn't just by a total insane person, but still the odds aren't all that good as most stuff is rubbish full stop whether it's published or not.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 2, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> thing is there are also lots of published authors whose stuff is Awful. Just because someone has convinced a commissioning editor to take on a book for some reason is no guarantee of any quality, and just because a commissioning editor hasn't taken on a book doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Of course there is more of a filter if something has been properly published so you have a better chance of reading something that isn't just by *a total insane person*, but still the odds aren't all that good as most stuff is rubbish full stop whether it's published or not.



Agreed.
It's just my experience of read self-publish writers is just that! Fuckin' unreadable loons.
Maybe it's the Internet as well, a freeway to eternal rubbishness - published/ self-published...too much drivel.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

It's like sex.  You should never pay for it.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 2, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Oi!
> 
> It's a fucking good book, and Kindle costs nothing. The publishers I have submitted to have expressed interest, but fuck - they are slow to get to action. Can't be arsed chasing them, so Kindle looks a good route to go.
> 
> ...



You lost me at '_It's a_'


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2011)

What's the story with promo for Kindle-only books? How do you generate attention?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I'm thinking about it. Looks like a better deal than going through established print publishers now.


What about the print on demand route, with somewhere like LuLu?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What's the story with promo for Kindle-only books? How do you generate attention?



You're not going to "generate attention" if you can't generate the interest of an editor, agent and/or publisher.

Apart from anything else, writing for free brings down the price of writing for those who live by it


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You're not going to "generate attention" if you can't generate the interest of an editor, agent and/or publisher.
> 
> Apart from anything else, writing for free brings down the price of writing for those who live by it



That's absolute nonsense, if I like a commercial writer I'm not going to stop reading them just because I also like a free writer. Plus self-publishing can generate more revenue for the author than the traditional publishing model, plus, asides from Amazon's cut, all profit goes to them as does all artistic and editorial control.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You're not going to "generate attention" if you can't generate the interest of an editor, agent and/or publisher.
> 
> Apart from anything else, writing for free brings down the price of writing for those who live by it



Of course you can. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean that others can't.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

YouSir said:


> That's absolute nonsense, if I like a commercial writer I'm not going to stop reading them just because I also like a free writer. Plus self-publishing can generate more revenue for the author than the traditional publishing model, plus, asides from Amazon's cut, all profit goes to them as does all artistic and editorial control.



Well first and foremost, it is extremely and permanently bad for your reputation.


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What's the story with promo for Kindle-only books? How do you generate attention?


somehow, you have to get amazon to decide to promote it. offering it them even cheaper is the main way (or, actually, getting your agent to do so, as they can then do some kind of deal for other boks too to make it all worthwhile).  but even then, you dont sell a vast amount, cos it is so cheap. even a number 1 bestseller wont bring you in a large amount, because they simply dont sell _that_ many.  The Number 1 bestseller can sell about 1000 books on a sunday, but on other days.....

A self published book (unless its by a major author) is unlikely to sell more than would be gained from an advance from a publisher, and it almost definitely means no publisher would want to pick it up (unless it became a runaway bestseller) as new books published in any previous form are just not popular with publishers.


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2011)

YouSir said:


> Plus self-publishing can generate more revenue for the author than the traditional publishing model



can, but almost always doesnt


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well first and foremost, it is extremely and permanently bad for your reputation.



How does that relate to self-published writers on Amazon effecting the fortunes of traditionally published writers? In fact, how does that relate to anything I said myself or quoted you saying?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

YouSir said:


> How does that relate to self-published writers on Amazon effecting the fortunes of traditionally published writers? In fact, how does that relate to anything I said myself or quoted you saying?



You seemed to be suggesting that it might be advisable to self-publish.  I pointed out that it is not, because people will not take you seriously in future.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

belboid said:


> can, but almost always doesnt



I reckon the potential for making money from it is going to increase a lot in coming years with traditional publishers struggling, Kindles proliferating and the means to market your work becoming more accessible to everyone. No doubt it still won't equate to getting a decent contract with someone but I do think it's far from the joke that self-publishing is traditionally viewed as and, for some people, it'll genuinely be the preferable choice for getting their work out. And some people have done very well out of it, can't remember the name but I read about the first millionaire made by self-publishing not so long ago, which bodes well for anyone looking to follow that path - assuming they're willing to put the vast amount of work into self-promotion that's necessary.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You seemed to be suggesting that it might be advisable to self-publish. I pointed out that it is not, because people will not take you seriously in future.



You mean you threw up a straw man because you knew that what you said about self-publishing writers harming the prospects of traditionally published writers made no sense.


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2011)

I agree it will become more common, and more 'acceptable.'  But at the moment, unless you can find some way of really marketting your book, there is no way it will make you more money than the traditional route.  Stan has said he's had some interest from trad publishers, so unless he is absolutely desperate for anything, he'd be much better off trying to push them for a response.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

belboid said:


> I agree it will become more common, and more 'acceptable.' But at the moment, unless you can find some way of really marketting your book, there is no way it will make you more money than the traditional route. Stan has said he's had some interest from trad publishers, so unless he is absolutely desperate for anything, he'd be much better off trying to push them for a response.



Indeed, wasn't really speculating on what he should do, just making a general point - certainly wouldn't advocate it as the best route for anyone and everyone.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

YouSir said:


> You mean you threw up a straw man because you knew that what you said about self-publishing writers harming the prospects of traditionally published writers made no sense.



People who write for free, is what I said, harm the prospects of people who must live by writing.  That's true mainly in journalism, where it has already caused the death of the professional freelancer, and the return of the gentleman amateur---there's a danger that this may spread though, as some posts here suggest.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 2, 2011)

loads of people write for free on the internet. are you saying they shouldn't?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> loads of people write for free on the internet. are you saying they shouldn't?



Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> People who write for free, is what I said, harm the prospects of people who must live by writing. That's true mainly in journalism, where it has already caused the death of the professional freelancer, and the return of the gentleman amateur---there's a danger that this may spread though, as some posts here suggest.



Self-publishing on Kindle doesn't really relate to journalism though does it? Plus I don't buy the argument in general, if people want to write for free that's their choice, they're not culpable for the collapse of an aggressive, ad-driven industry which has routinely manipulated and misused journalists to maintain its profit margins. Instead of hinting that free writers are a negative people should be looking for a way for journalists and writers to collectively and individually profit from their work in the new digital age. Same as with music, it's not for artists to dictate their actions with a view to propping up a failing system, rather it's for all of us to create a better one - or not.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> loads of people write for free on the internet. are you saying they shouldn't?



Of course not.  But in the world of book publishing, to be taken seriously your work still has to have gained acceptance by various layers of readers, editors, agents etc., so there's a basic guarantee that it meets a certain standard of literacy and sanity, if nothing else.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not. But in the world of book publishing, to be taken seriously your work still has to have gained acceptance by various layers of readers, editors, agents etc., so there's a basic guarantee that it meets a certain standard of literacy and sanity, if nothing else.



Looking at the drivel that get's published by big publishers I have my sincere doubts about the QA work done by these people you mention.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not. But in the world of book publishing, to be taken seriously your work still has to have gained acceptance by various layers of readers, editors, agents etc., so *there's a basic guarantee that it meets a certain standard of literacy and sanity, if nothing else.*


i'm not sure about that. in fact, i'm certain. poppycock


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Looking at the drivel that get's published by big publishers I have my sincere doubts about the QA work done by these people you mention.



Well at the very least it's good enough to make money.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well at the very least it's good enough to make money.



And that's an indicator of quality.... how? Or do you rate Barbara Cartland highly?


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not. But in the world of book publishing, to be taken seriously your work still has to have gained acceptance by various layers of readers, editors, agents etc., so there's a basic guarantee that it meets a certain standard of literacy and sanity, if nothing else.



There's a hefty dose of nonsense in there, literature is a highly subjective matter beyond the very basic technical stuff entailed in spelling things right and whatnot, being an agent or a publisher or a reviewer doesn't automatically grant some profound new objective awareness of what's good. At best it means you know whatever market you work with and can predict what will appeal to them, you may find something you hate but that doesn't mean there isn't an audience for it and a quality to it. That's the biggest strength of independent and free publishing imho, it breaks out of a system which dictates that the opinions of a minority have meaning for the majority and places the judgement directly in the hands of the audience. The only reason acceptance by the established industry is held up as a hallmark of being a serious writer is because people grant it that value, if they went on recommendations, or blog reviews, or sample chapters, or just reading the work instead then that notion of bestowed value disappears.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well at the very least it's good enough to make money.



Seriously?


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2011)

God, it pains me to say it, but,I think that, for once..... phil is actually, basically, right.

There is, as yet, no equivalent of John Peel or the NME for books (literary or otherwise). Random blogs and 'recommendations' on websites are all but worthless. They could be by anyone, mates or enemies of the author (as happens all the time on Amazon. fuck off hari). Without that kind of marketting muscle, you are just a random thing floating out in the ether. You've got to hope that someone comes across your tome and decides that just your blurb (and the brief selection you've let them read) is enough for them to try it. But that isn't generally how people buy books. I can take played, but disliked, records and swap them for something I want, for instance. But I can't really do that with books. People either know exactly what they want when they go to buy, or they follow the recommendation of someone they know and trust (however foolish that may be)


----------



## 100% masahiko (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well at the very least it's good enough to make money.



That's the thing.
There are some well shit self-published writers that do it to earn money (they also spend hundreds into publishing their own shit)...

Those ones give other writers - published (whatever method) a bad name.

(when i mean 'shit' i don't mean in a Cartland sorta way but ones who can't even string a sentence together).


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

belboid said:


> God, it pains me to say it, but,I think that, for once..... phil is actually, basically, right.
> 
> There is, as yet, no equivalent of John Peel or the NME for books (literary or otherwise). Random blogs and 'recommendations' on websites are all but worthless. They could be by anyone, mates or enemies of the author (as happens all the time on Amazon. fuck off hari). Without that kind of marketting muscle, you are just a random thing floating out in the ether. You've got to hope that someone comes across your tome and decides that just your blurb (and the brief selection you've let them read) is enough for them to try it. But that isn't generally how people buy books. I can take played, but disliked, records and swap them for something I want, for instance. But I can't really do that with books. People either know exactly what they want when they go to buy, or they follow the recommendation of someone they know and trust (however foolish that may be)



Not saying the quality control model exists yet but I do think it'll grow, already happening with free music, which didn't have the structure of commercial indy music previously and whilst books are different in the sense that they're harder to just take a punt on ebooks really do offer a lot more scope for that. You might not spend a tenner on a paper back without any reference but a quid on an ebook is a different prospect. Marketing muscle isn't wholly necessary I don't think but there does need to be a community to take up the slack if you don't have it, reliable reviewers, (more) reliable rating systems, better options for sharing on social media et al. The internet makes it inevitable that self-publishing will get bigger, may not apply to the structures required to make that growth more than self indulgent and futile but the potential is certainly there and more and more people are going to find themselves caught up in it - so why not get caught up to the point where you contribute to making a structure which helps everyone? Maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic though.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

I think that if you're _any good at all, _or just a little bit marketable, you'll be able to interest an agent or publisher in your work anyway.

At the very least you should have been able to publish articles in well-read journals already.


----------



## YouSir (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I think that if you're _any good at all, _or just a little bit marketable, you'll be able to interest an agent or publisher in your work anyway.
> 
> At the very least you should have been able to publish articles in well-read journals already.



Marketable <-----------------> Good. Bit of a moot point either way, who can say how many genuinely good books have never seen the light of day for the lack of commercial interest? Fairly sure there's at least a few.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 2, 2011)

YouSir said:


> Marketable <-----------------> Good. Bit of a moot point either way, who can say how many genuinely good books have never seen the light of day for the lack of commercial interest? Fairly sure there's at least a few.



You reckon?  I'm not so sure, I suspect that pretty much everything good gets picked up eventually.


----------



## Riklet (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer you are so full of smug shit it's unreal.

oh boo hoo 'real authors' like yourselves will suffer if people (y'know... real people) write for free or try and self publish. what a load of shite. get with the times grandad, dunno if you've seen but there is a massive market for electronic books emerging, and eventually the publishing industry is going to undergo what the music industry has gone and is going through.

Telling people who can't get published to just suck it up is bullshit. Publishers want what they can sell, not what is good, or what furthers human intellect, creativity or awesomeness. If you can get your work out there through selling ebooks etc, then go for it, any aspiring authors in this thread. fairly sure success in electronic format will become a good leveraging tool against print publishers in future, they aren't going to turn down good $$.

It's definitely true for the moment though that with kindle or other ebook sites, it still relies a bit upon luck, good reviews n things going viral, once you do get something up there, there isn't the promotion or distribution networks that conventional publishers still have huge control over, but to think that is fixed for ever is pretty naive.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not. But in the world of book publishing, to be taken seriously your work still has to have gained acceptance by various layers of readers, editors, agents etc., so there's a basic guarantee that it meets a certain standard of literacy and sanity, if nothing else.



A quick visit to your local bookshop would dispel this misconception I feel.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 3, 2011)

Riklet said:


> oh boo hoo 'real authors' like yourselves will suffer if people (y'know... real people) write for free



Yes, just as in every other profession. No-one should work for free. I don't see why anyone would want to.

"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." -- Dr. Johnson.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, just as in every other profession. No-one should work for free. I don't see why anyone would want to<snip>


Because for some people it's not just a way of earning a living.  Writing can be driven by an innate urge, similar to Mozart's compulsion to compose even when he wasn't being paid to do so.


----------



## grit (Dec 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And that's an indicator of quality.... how? Or do you rate Barbara Cartland highly?



Its an indicator of quality that there a sizable amount of people are willing to spend money on it to read it. Does it mean its booker prize worthy literature, no, but it does manage to attach some sort of value to it.

A book being good is completely subjective to the reader, same as movies, music etc.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Dec 3, 2011)

nah, theres thousands of my journalism bollox posted around. im an 'opinion piece' ponce these days. fuck that shit tho;


----------



## Cid (Dec 3, 2011)

Riklet said:


> phildwyer you are so full of smug shit it's unreal.
> 
> oh boo hoo 'real authors' like yourselves will suffer if people (y'know... real people) write for free or try and self publish. what a load of shite. get with the times grandad, dunno if you've seen but there is a massive market for electronic books emerging, and eventually the publishing industry is going to undergo what the music industry has gone and is going through.



Not a comparison. Copied music is still recorded, produced and marketed extensively - people wouldn't be downloading it if they didn't know about it. Of course there'll be a shift to electronic publishing, but self-publishing is another thing entirely. Doubtless (as with music) some will make it work for themselves, but you'll get epic amounts of dross to sift through, and you don't have the advantage of being able to judge it on a 3 minute track.



> Telling people who can't get published to just suck it up is bullshit. Publishers want what they can sell, not what is good, or what furthers human intellect, creativity or awesomeness. If you can get your work out there through selling ebooks etc, then go for it, any aspiring authors in this thread. fairly sure success in electronic format will become a good leveraging tool against print publishers in future, they aren't going to turn down good $$.



Different publishing houses want different things - I doubt the AK press is overly concerned with turning a fast buck.



> It's definitely true for the moment though that with kindle or other ebook sites, it still relies a bit upon luck, good reviews n things going viral, once you do get something up there, there isn't the promotion or distribution networks that conventional publishers still have huge control over, but to think that is fixed for ever is pretty naive.



Yep, but it's just as naive to think this will mean an increase in quality and a total lack of people ready to screw you over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You're not going to "generate attention" if you can't generate the interest of an editor, agent and/or publisher.



Perhaps they're more interested in generating readers, phil?

Maybe if your own publishers were more worried about that, they'd have had better sales of your own writings?



> Apart from anything else, writing for free brings down the price of writing for those who live by it



And that's your real gripe, isn't it? Someone might do phildwyer out of a few bucks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

YouSir said:


> That's absolute nonsense, if I like a commercial writer I'm not going to stop reading them just because I also like a free writer. Plus self-publishing can generate more revenue for the author than the traditional publishing model, plus, asides from Amazon's cut, all profit goes to them as does all artistic and editorial control.



I seem to recall an equivalent to phil's argument being made by some musicians and by the music biz back when electronic formats were first becoming a viable means of dissemination.

We know which side won that argument.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> loads of people write for free on the internet. are you saying they shouldn't?



Of course he is. He earns part of his own living by writing for weeklies, journals etc, as well as accepting commissions to write books. Interesting that he didn't declare his rather obvious partisanship, though...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well at the very least it's good enough to make money.



"Good enough" is relative to what you're writing about. If you're well-known for sounding off about a particularly abstruse sector of an academic discipline or philosophic POV, then you'll be the "go-to guy" regardless of whether what you write has any intrinsic value.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

Riklet said:


> phildwyer you are so full of smug shit it's unreal.
> 
> oh boo hoo 'real authors' like yourselves will suffer if people (y'know... real people) write for free or try and self publish. what a load of shite. get with the times grandad, dunno if you've seen but there is a massive market for electronic books emerging, and eventually the publishing industry is going to undergo what the music industry has gone and is going through.
> 
> ...



That "get with the times grandad" quip had me snorting tea out of my nose!!


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 3, 2011)

I have a friend who's self published via the Barnes & Noble NOOK e-reader. He's got a couple reviews for it already, but has had his share of ups and downs trying to sell the book. It's under 5 dollars, but not a well publicised item (only people that know about it being out is the ones he tells... he has no PR team and I've actually been trying to hit up book sellers to review / interview him...for him).

In order to have a proper go at the whole self publication, IMO, it's really all dependant on what you write, where you go, and how much word of mouth you can give the print. Maybe if you know someone with a blog, give them a copy, have them read it, and then review it online, linking to the site where it can be bought. Sometimes that's just as good as telling your mates in the pub.

in case you're curious, here's the link to the book.

Good luck.


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2011)

Philip Larkin paid to have his first book published.


----------



## Santino (Dec 3, 2011)

Didn't Russell and Whitehead pay to have the first edition of Principia Mathematica printed too?


----------



## Cid (Dec 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I seem to recall an equivalent to phil's argument being made by some musicians and by the music biz back when electronic formats were first becoming a viable means of dissemination.
> 
> We know which side won that argument.



Again, not really the same thing, most musicians are not doing all their own recording, producing and marketing.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 3, 2011)

A great many are, and being quite successful to boot. This started long before digital formats became normal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

Cid said:


> Again, not really the same thing, most musicians are not doing all their own recording, producing and marketing.



Maybe not "most", but there are a significant minority doing so, even if their "marketing" means a facebook page and a handful of cdrs in a bag when they play out, just like local bands used to do with cassettes with photocopied liners back in the day. 

I'm happy to admit that product published by a major publisher will be more polished and more publicity-friendly, but that's just gloss, like a piece of your furniture in a showroom getting dusted every couple of days - the work itself is what should be important, not the package it comes in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2011)

TruXta said:


> A great many are, and being quite successful to boot. This started long before digital formats became normal.



Yep. Self-production (in all meanings of the word) is nothing new in music or in literature.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 3, 2011)

abe11825 said:


> I have a friend who's self published via the Barnes & Noble NOOK e-reader. He's got a couple reviews for it already, but has had his share of ups and downs trying to sell the book. It's under 5 dollars, but not a well publicised item (only people that know about it being out is the ones he tells... he has no PR team and I've actually been trying to hit up book sellers to review / interview him...for him).
> 
> In order to have a proper go at the whole self publication, IMO, it's really all dependant on what you write, where you go, and how much word of mouth you can give the print. Maybe if you know someone with a blog, give them a copy, have them read it, and then review it online, linking to the site where it can be bought. Sometimes that's just as good as telling your mates in the pub.
> 
> ...


I'd like to read it, but a) I'm not in the US and b) I don't have a NookBook 

Perhaps look at placing it on the Kindle to make it available to more people?


----------



## Cid (Dec 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Maybe not "most", but there are a significant minority doing so, even if their "marketing" means a facebook page and a handful of cdrs in a bag when they play out, just like local bands used to do with cassettes with photocopied liners back in the day.



Yeah, of course - there's nothing wrong with doing it, just depends what you want to get out of it and how much effort you're willing to put in.



> I'm happy to admit that product published by a major publisher will be more polished and more publicity-friendly, but that's just gloss, like a piece of your furniture in a showroom getting dusted every couple of days - the work itself is what should be important, not the package it comes in.



If I could get a piece of furniture in the V&A i would be very, very happy. Thing is i've gone through years of design training, been through relentless crits, worked in several design companies, known some of the best in the profession etc... Other cabinet makers who have just dropped in from accountancy or similar design some utterly woeful stuff, you need experience - I still have a lot to learn myself. The advantage of a publisher is that it provides a short cut through all that, their editors understand what sells, but that often coincides with what works well from a literary/graphic standpoint... It may seem like the gloss is unnecessary but, to continue the furniture metaphor, the final polish is really the most important thing to get right.


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 3, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I'd like to read it, but a) I'm not in the US and b) I don't have a NookBook
> 
> Perhaps look at placing it on the Kindle to make it available to more people?



Lemme see what I can do; possibly put a bug in his ear to get it over into Kindle format.  Cheers, thoough, for the suggestion! 



Cid said:


> Yeah, of course - there's nothing wrong with doing it, just depends what you want to get out of it and how much effort you're willing to put in.



Doesn't this ring true to a lot of idea(ls)?

e2a: I Googled the book right after just to see... Amazon does have it. American version is $4.99, while the UK version is £3.55


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 3, 2011)

abe11825 said:


> Lemme see what I can do; possibly put a bug in his ear to get it over into Kindle format.  Cheers, thoough, for the suggestion!
> ?


No problem.


----------



## Cid (Dec 3, 2011)

abe11825 said:


> Doesn't this ring true to a lot of idea(ls)?



Of course, but then outsourcing various stages of a process happens in a lot of of professions... I wish I had a web designer, accountant, secretary and PR person. I do all of these things myself, but would much rather be designing, working out business plans etc - employing people from those areas who are actually worth it would cost me a fortune though.


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 4, 2011)

Cid said:


> Of course, but then outsourcing various stages of a process happens in a lot of of professions... I wish I had a web designer, accountant, secretary and PR person. I do all of these things myself, but would much rather be designing, working out business plans etc - employing people from those areas who are actually worth it would cost me a fortune though.



Yes, outsourcing happens as well. IMO, if you can talk to people and get ideas on subjects, or how to work a programme, the more you can work for yourself. Unless you happen to know someone that would be your personal assistant pro bono. Either way, it doesn't hurt to ask for a suggestion or two on how to work things.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I seem to recall an equivalent to phil's argument being made by some musicians and by the music biz back when electronic formats were first becoming a viable means of dissemination.
> 
> We know which side won that argument.



The fact that you would compare book publishing to the record industry proves how completely ignorant you are of both.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course he is. He earns part of his own living by writing for weeklies, journals etc, as well as accepting commissions to write books. Interesting that he didn't declare his rather obvious partisanship, though...



The fact of the matter is that anyone who pays to publish their own work is doing irreparable damage to their own reputation, in all probability ensuring that they will never be published by a reputable weekly or journal.

From a purely self-interested perspective then, I should be encouraging everyone to do it.  Fortunately however I am too public spirited for that.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The fact that you would compare book publishing to the record industry proves how completely ignorant you are of both.


Unbelievably wide of the mark.  BTW sweetie, you really must stop saying things like that when I've got a mouthful of tea, the laptop can't take it.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Unbelievably wide of the mark. BTW sweetie, you really must stop saying things like that when I've got a mouthful of tea, the laptop can't take it.



You claim that VP knows something of the recording industry then?

Because his comments here alone prove beyond all doubt that he knows nothing of book publishing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The fact of the matter is that anyone who pays to publish their own work is doing irreparable damage to their own reputation, in all probability ensuring that they will never be published by a reputable weekly or journal.



You appear to have missed the point, which isn't about "vanity-publishing", i.e. paying to publish your own work through a vanity press at all, it's about *self*-publishing.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>his comments here alone prove beyond all doubt that he knows nothing of book publishing.


What you know of your very tiny sector of the academic publishing world applies across the board, does it?  Interesting, but not convincing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The fact that you would compare book publishing to the record industry proves how completely ignorant you are of both.



I haven't compared them, phil.

Try again.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to have missed the point, which isn't about "vanity-publishing", i.e. paying to publish your own work through a vanity press at all, it's about *self*-publishing.



Same difference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You claim that VP knows something of the recording industry then?
> 
> Because his comments here alone prove beyond all doubt that he knows nothing of book publishing.



Elucidate, please.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't compared them, phil.



Yes you did:



ViolentPanda said:


> I seem to recall an equivalent to phil's argument being made by some musicians eand by the music biz back when electronic formats were first becoming a viable means of dissmination.



But in reality your comparison is spurious.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Same difference.


Prove it.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Prove it.



Well basically my point is just common sense. If you can't convince someone to pay you a bit of money for your writing, it's probably not very good, or at least not of much interest to people other than yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Same difference.



Only if you don't know what you're talking about, phil.

Most fanzines are self-published, but are done so for a subscription base. One of the best journals of parapolitical analysis (Lobster) is self-published for a subscrription base. These aren't endeavours to plump the vanity of their publishers, they're serious output targeted at a knowledgeable readership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well basically my point is just common sense. If you can't convince someone to pay you a bit of money for your writing, it's probably not very good, or at least not of much interest to people other than yourself.



Like many common-sense notions, yours is shite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well basically my point is just common sense. If you can't convince someone to pay you a bit of money for your writing, it's probably not very good, or at least not of much interest to people other than yourself.



What you're saying is that if a *publisher* doesn't pay you, then your output is "probably not very good", I presume?
"Publisher pays" isn't the only model, phil, although perhaps the only model *you* care about.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like many common-sense notions, yours is shite.



No, it is true.

Besides which, people shouldn't work for free anyway.  Do you work for free?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What you're saying is that if a *publisher* doesn't pay you, then your output is "probably not very good", I presume?



Of course not, which is why I said "somebody" rather than "publisher."  It doesn't matter who, but _somebody _should be willing to pay for your work, otherwise it isn't work at all is it?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well basically my point is just common sense.


Sweetie, I'm very disappointed in you.  Tbaldwin hasn't even been dead a year and you're channelling him and his line that things are just common sense.  



phildwyer said:


> If you can't convince someone to pay you a bit of money for your writing, it's probably not very good, or at least not of much interest to people other than yourself.


Here's the situation, publishers are risk averse and will buy what has sold before.  If you come up with something completely unlike anything currently selling or being trended as the next big thing, you're unlikely to get an offer for it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> No, it is true.



To you, perhaps.



> Besides which, people shouldn't work for free anyway. Do you work for free?



That depends on whether you define work as any labour that requires physical and/or mental effort regardless of remuneration, or narrowly as "commissioned paid labour".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not, which is why I said "somebody" rather than "publisher." It doesn't matter who, but _somebody _should be willing to pay for your work, otherwise it isn't work at all is it?



It seems you're very much in the "work is commissioned paid labour" camp.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Here's the situation, publishers are risk averse and will buy what has sold before. If you come up with something completely unlike anything currently selling or being trended as the next big thing, you're unlikely to get an offer for it.



You will if it's any good.

Publishers are usually very good at spotting talent, they have to be.  And they're not necessarily risk averse either, they want to discover the next big thing themselves.

Now it's true that if you approach them with some idea that's as you put it "unlike anything currently selling," there is a good chance that they will turn you down.  There is also an excellent chance that your idea is crap.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It seems you're very much in the "work is commissioned paid labour" camp.



I can't afford not to be.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It seems you're very much in the "work is commissioned paid labour" camp.



I can't afford not to be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I can't afford not to be.



So your position may not actually be to do with the quality of self or vanity-published work, but on the degree it might impinge on your own potential to earn through selling your work.

If that's the case, then fair enough, but why not admit that rather than making the fatuous "poor quality" argument?


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So your position may not actually be to do with the quality of self or vanity-published work, but on the degree it might impinge on your own potential to earn through selling your work.



No, it's based on both.

As I say, it really is common sense.


----------



## Cid (Dec 4, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, I'm very disappointed in you. Tbaldwin hasn't even been dead a year and you're channelling him and his line that things are just common sense.
> 
> Here's the situation, publishers are risk averse and will buy what has sold before. If you come up with something completely unlike anything currently selling or being trended as the next big thing, you're unlikely to get an offer for it.



Much as I dislike agreeing with dwyer this is simply not true... Publishers specialise, that's the whole point in them - there are as many as there are writing styles, it's just a question of finding the right one. There are so many of them that if you can't there is probably something wrong with what you're writing. This is why they're important, the best will take you under their wing, give you advice on what they think will work and what won't, give you access to detailed knowledge of their markets, give you decent criticism, provide editors and proof-readers etc. What they provide is knowledge of a field that you simply won't be able to replicate without years of work and research... Anyone who's written an essay more than a couple of thousand words will know how useful it is to have someone to give you informed feedback - creativity does not happen in isolation. Ok, it doesn't _have_ to be a publisher, but they're in a very good position to do it.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 4, 2011)

Cid said:


> Much as I dislike agreeing with dwyer this is simply not true... Publishers specialise, that's the whole point in them - there are as many as there are writing styles, it's just a question of finding the right one. There are so many of them that if you can't there is probably something wrong with what you're writing. This is why they're important, the best will take you under their wing, give you advice on what they think will work and what won't, give you access to detailed knowledge of their markets, give you decent criticism, provide editors and proof-readers etc. What they provide is knowledge of a field that you simply won't be able to replicate without years of work and research... Anyone who's written an essay more than a couple of thousand words will know how useful it is to have someone to give you informed feedback - creativity does not happen in isolation. Ok, it doesn't _have_ to be a publisher, but they're in a very good position to do it.



Absolute bullshit.  You have no idea what you are talking about, and seem even more ignorant than the Pandas.

The people to approach are agents, not publishers.  Publishers just throw unsolicited manuscripts straight in the bin.


----------



## Cid (Dec 4, 2011)

Phil it's not like knowing about the existence of agents is some kind of specialised knowledge, I kind of assume people can fill in the gaps.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

Cid said:


> Phil it's not like knowing about the existence of agents is some kind of specialised knowledge, I kind of assume people can fill in the gaps.



Actually a lot of people _don't _know that you have to go through an agent, so they waste their time approaching publishers and then get unnecessarily discouraged when they get turned down.

And obviously getting an agent is much easier than getting a publisher.  Most of them will bite your hand off, it doesn't cost them anything after all.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

Phil: are you a published author?? do you make a living from that??


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> Phil: are you a published author?? do you make a living from that??


Oh he's published alright, but whether you'd want to read his books is another thing altogether. 

Sorry dwyer, but IMHO even for an academic your writing style is extremely stiff.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 5, 2011)

He trolls academic journals.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

well that is a bit mean!
i just wanted to know if it was possible to make a living from writing and if so what kind of stuff you would have to write.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

ps i am a published author... earnings so far £50... that works out about 10p a word tho.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> ps i am a published author... earnings so far £50... that works out about 10p a word tho.



What have you published?


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

4 little articles in 2 books about music.... VERY little articles. nothing to be proud of particularly, i don't even have copies i don't think.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

in fact, the fact that i am "in print" whereas lots of much better writers aren't is the reason why i don't buy this idea that it doesn't count unless you are published. i just happened to be in the right room at the right time, with some (basic) knowledge that noone else happened to have that filled a gap.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> Phil: are you a published author?? do you make a living from that??



Yes, and no.  I've published eight books and loads of articles, but never really made much money from them.

If I _really_ tried, I could probably make about 10 or 15 grand a year from writing.  So I don't think that being a professional freelancer writing quality stuff is feasible.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> in fact, the fact that i am "in print" whereas lots of much better writers aren't is the reason why i don't buy this idea that it doesn't count unless you are published. i just happened to be in the right room at the right time, with some (basic) knowledge that noone else happened to have that filled a gap.



Like most jobs then, luck plays a major role.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Like most jobs then, luck plays a major role.


it wasn't even all that lucky, i think i'm still owed £35 for it as it happens.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

basically i think all creative things generally assume that the person doing the creating is going to be so grateful to get it out there that the person putting it out can take pretty much all of any money that is involved... so the difference between traditional publishing and self-publishing/vanity publishing is just a matter of degree.
you are right about the filtering that goes on with trad publishing tho, that does help give some quality control i guess.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> it wasn't even all that lucky, i think i'm still owed £35 for it as it happens.



Yet another hazard of the freelance existence.

Incidentally, one reason why it isn't any longer possible to make a living as a freelance writer is the plethora of rich kids who are happy to write for next-to-nothing.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> basically i think all creative things generally assume that the person doing the creating is going to be so grateful to get it out there that the person putting it out can take pretty much all of any money that is involved...



A good general rule is: the more difficult something is to write, the less you get paid for writing it.


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Yet another hazard of the freelance existence.
> 
> Incidentally, one reason why it isn't any longer possible to make a living as a freelance writer is the plethora of rich kids who are happy to write for next-to-nothing.


ha i hope you are not suggesting i am a rich kid! i am just bad with money.

i don't think people clogging up the internet with free writing has much affect on the amount of paid writing work around... i dunno maybe you're right, i imagine that magazines etc have a lot of people doing unpaid internships, i have no experience of that. but people will be willing to pay for any seriously good content i would have thought. and that is whether it is self- or traditionally published


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> A good general rule is: the more difficult something is to write, the less you get paid for writing it.


surely you should be in favour of self-publishing in that case? getting rid of the inbetween people who are paying so little...


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> ha i hope you are not suggesting i am a rich kid! i am just bad with money.



No, sorry, that wasn't aimed at you!

Nor was it aimed at the internet, I'm thinking more of weekly or monthly journals, which pay very little, or sometimes not at all, because most of their contributors don't need the money.


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 5, 2011)

I just read this in Wired magazine, in case anyone is interested.

I think it relates to the OP in the case that they are questioning the validity of self publishing, but its going thru Kindle instead of paper; where as the article questions the validity of paper publishing verse all electronic means.  One machine that is mentioned in the article is called Espresso Book Machine, and according to the description, it takes a digital copy / file (i.e the OP's Kindle book) and transcribes it into a hard copy... with a bound cover and all.

I guess the next question with this, or relating to the topic is, if people self publish via Kindle, Nook, or any where else online, would they see a profit from something like the Espresso Book Machine as well?


----------



## rutabowa (Dec 5, 2011)

abe11825 said:


> I just read this in Wired magazine, in case anyone is interested.
> 
> I think it relates to the OP in the case that they are questioning the validity of self publishing, but its going thru Kindle instead of paper; where as the article questions the validity of paper publishing verse all electronic means. One machine that is mentioned in the article is called Espresso Book Machine, and according to the description, it takes a digital copy / file (i.e the OP's Kindle book) and transcribes it into a hard copy... with a bound cover and all.
> 
> I guess the next question with this, or relating to the topic is, if people self publish via Kindle, Nook, or any where else online, would they see a profit from something like the Espresso Book Machine as well?


not sure i understand what you mean, do you mean profit as in money?
book on demand publishing has existed for a while... amazon do it i think... it is just the same as ebook publishing as far as i can tell except if the reader wants a hard copy they pay a bit extra and get that.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> A good general rule is: the more difficult something is to write, the less you get paid for writing it.


60 paltry quid for translating an 8 page magazine article into English.  Done? I most certainly was.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

Greebo said:


> 60 paltry quid for translating an 8 page magazine article into English. Done? I most certainly was.



I know people who'd happily do that for free, just for the line on their vita.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I know people who'd happily do that for free, just for the line on their vita.


Sweetie, it took over a fortnight to do. And the technical language was quite a bit beyond the O level French of the person who wanted it in English. I may have been desperate, but I'd never do something like that for free unless it was also enjoyable.

To be fair, it led to a job with that person's firm, but it was only part time, finished after less than a year (Black Wednesday) and got me quite badly into debt.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 5, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, it took over a fortnight to do. And the technical language was quite a bit beyond the O level French of the person who wanted it in English. I may have been desperate, but I'd never do something like that for free unless it was also enjoyable.



Sixty quid for two weeks' work _is _free.


----------



## Cid (Dec 5, 2011)

Modern labour market greebo, you'd have a couple of hundred people with a masters in French clamouring for the job.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Sixty quid for two weeks' work _is _free.


Sixty quid, cash in hand, about 10 years ago. Before the widespread availability of machine translation.


----------



## abe11825 (Dec 5, 2011)

rutabowa said:


> not sure i understand what you mean, do you mean profit as in money?
> book on demand publishing has existed for a while... amazon do it i think... it is just the same as ebook publishing as far as i can tell except if the reader wants a hard copy they pay a bit extra and get that.



"profit" meaning both for pay / money as well a general take... sorry, I don't know the other term... but it's like, they'd see more buyers possibly, if there was that second option of printing an ebook into a hard cover or what not. Maybe even if Granny didn't have the reader and the author wanted to use the only ecopy and print it for her?


----------



## Bakunin (May 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You seemed to be suggesting that it might be advisable to self-publish. I pointed out that it is not, because people will not take you seriously in future.


 
I'm considering self-publishing a collection of my published true crime stuff so this thread is interesting. For the benefit of fellow posters wondering whether or not Dwyer is right I'll list some nobodies who indulged in the dark and professionally-damaging sin of self-publishing:

Virginia Woolf, Ezra Pound, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Marcel Proust, Martin Luther, Walt Whitman, Nathaniel Hawthorne and a certain Jane Austen among many others.

So, to recap, Dwyer is the font from which all literary wisdom and knowledge undoubtedly flow and his opinions are Gospel to be taken entirely and wholly at face value.

Either that or he's the literary equivalent of a backed-up shithouse and his advice is about as useful as the contents thereof.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2013)

hmm, Woolf only self-published her last book after she was already a major success, Austen's self published works weren't successful (thier may have be an element of vanity publishing in getting her bro to publish the major works, but he was a proper publisher, with all that that entails). Walt Whitman is the only really good example in that list, in that he did self publish an early and major work, and it was undoubtedly that that made his name. Laurence Sterne would be a better example, as he SP'd Tristram Shandy.

As a general rule,I really hate to say it, but dwyer  is right. 

A couple of working class people have made good under capitalism, but I dont think any of us would use that to argue that capitalism is a good way for working class people to make good.


----------



## phildwyer (May 18, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> I'm considering self-publishing a collection of my published true crime stuff so this thread is interesting. For the benefit of fellow posters wondering whether or not Dwyer is right I'll list some nobodies who indulged in the dark and professionally-damaging sin of self-publishing:
> 
> Virginia Woolf, Ezra Pound, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Marcel Proust, Martin Luther, Walt Whitman, Nathaniel Hawthorne and a certain Jane Austen among many others.
> 
> ...


 
Hey man, more power to your elbow.  Go ahead and prove me wrong.

From what I've seen of your writing on here, my opınıon ıs that you have the all lıterary talent of a partıcularly unımagınatıve gnat.

But who knows?  In sıx months tıme you may well be laughıng at me from your tax exıle ın Bermuda.  Stranger thıngs have happened.  I can't thınk of one rıght now, but I'm sure they have.


----------



## phildwyer (May 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> dwyer is right.


 
Eh?  What's that you say?  Speak up man I'm a bıt deaf ın my rıght ear.



belboid said:


> dwyer is right.


 
Pardon?  My hearıng aıd seems to be playıng up lately.  Say what now?



belboid said:


> dwyer is right.


 
Sorry, stıll can't quıte catch your drıft.  What was the last bıt agaın?



belboid said:


> dwyer is right.


 
No, I stıll can't make ıt out.  Bakunın, would you mınd tellıng me what he saıd please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> I'm considering self-publishing a collection of my published true crime stuff so this thread is interesting. For the benefit of fellow posters wondering whether or not Dwyer is right I'll list some nobodies who indulged in the dark and professionally-damaging sin of self-publishing:
> 
> Virginia Woolf, Ezra Pound, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, William Faulkner, Marcel Proust, Martin Luther, Walt Whitman, Nathaniel Hawthorne and a certain Jane Austen among many others.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure that phil has written any literature. Criticism, reviews, academic stuff, sure.

Want me to PM you the titles of a couple of phil's books? You can get 'em 2nd-hand for bugger-all and then decide for yourself whether  he's worth listening to.


----------

