The Sigma of the Stigma

I've been catching up on some writerly-world blogs lately, including Dean Wesley Smith's. I just finished his sum-up of the year 2013 in publishing. Plenty of good thoughts and observations in there, as is expected from this particular industry vet. If you haven't yet, definitely peruse his and his wife's blogs: they have lots of info for aspiring authors of all stripes.

A few of the comment's to the post I was reading sparked my memory of a topic I'd wanted to revisit for some time now. The stigma of self-publishing: how it continues to affect reader perceptions and how it is changing. Especially in the area of copyediting.

I can say without a doubt that two out of the last four traditionally-published books I've read recently had a higher rate of typos and other proofing errors than my own offered books. I've been hearing more and more from non-writers who are beginning to notice this downward trend in quality from the major houses.

Yet, in most reviews I see of trad-published books, such a thing as a typo is never mentioned, whereas in reviews of indie-published books they are mentioned with a high frequency even when it is to say "I didn't find many."

In many ways, the stigma of the self-publisher is dying. People rarely bat an eye anymore when I say I'm self-published as opposed to traditionally published. The world of the serious indie publisher is becoming more refined and polished, with business and production practices trending to a standard much closer to the major houses. In a lot of cases (including, I hope, my own) you cannot tell the product of one from the other.

Except, it seems, in the case of editing, in which self-publishers are taking the lead in quality. Because we have to. When a reader stumbles across an error in a book they know is self-published, it becomes a major event. That still-present stain is seen more clearly; the book feels soiled in their hands. It becomes a confirmation of the "not-quite-there-yet" status of the indie crowd.

But the same reader takes no similar notice of errors in traditionally-published books, even when present at a higher rate. With indie published work, the reader is on the lookout for that confirmation of a second-tier status they still believe in. Thus to be taken seriously, self-publishers don't have to be "as good as" a traditionally published work.

They need to be better.

Music Drives the Mood

I love the internet.

You can get pretty much anything you need on the internet, provided you're willing to be a little flexible. I'm recording an audio book trailer (still hoping to shoot a video one as well, but we'll see) and needed music. Sure enough, the wonderful Kevin McLeod has an entire site packed with high-quality, royalty free music.

Kevin, I cannot thank you enough.

Of course, that flexibility I mentioned comes in when I actually select a piece of music I want to go along with the audio trailer. The music, not the words, really determine the mood of the trailer, and I will need to change my delivery to make them work together instead of clash. No matter. I'm sure that somewhere within that library of work I can find something to match my tastes and deliver the proper feel.

It makes me realize, though, just how large a support network I'm going to need if I want to do this more often and with higher quality. Artists, actors, musicians... and that's just for the trailers.

Self-Pubbed Freedom

If I hadn't decided to try out self-publishing (and if services like Amazon's KDP and Smashwords weren't around to make that choice possible) I never would have been able to get stories like Swordsman of Carn Nebeth or Three Fingers of Death published. Even though they are perfectly good and I'm sure lots of people will like them, they're just too awkward a length. I can't think of even one professional venue that publishes novella-length fiction, though I imagine there are a couple out there.

I've been thinking lately of another little detail that self-published authors don't need to worry about as much, and that is cutting their stories down to size. Story length matters a lot less in digital publishing in any case. Printing costs are nonexistent and shelf space is unlimited (at least, in the physical sense).

I mentioned in my last post that the mantra of the writing world is "cut, cut, cut." Beginning writers are often told to cut every last unnecessary word out of their story. This always struck me as odd. We are writers, not chroniclers. Arguably, if a 'word' is entertaining then it is necessary. It certainly wouldn't do to simply state the cold-blooded events of a narrative - that's not a story, it's an outline.

I've always wondered how much of that pressure comes from the publishing industries worries about cost versus how much comes from actual concern about the best methods to tell a story. I'll bet that a lot of really good passages and wonderful character development has ended up on the cutting room floor over the years. It's the same thing that happens with movies: to hit a target 'theater length' a lot of scenes have to be cut out and the movie often ends up as a sub-optimal specimen until the inevitable (in these days of DVD releases) "Editor's Cut" is released. A lot of the time? Those Editor's Cuts really ARE better.

Might not the same be true of novels? How many writers have had to cut out perfectly good material because it wasn't essential to the plot? As I've said, very few things in any novel are truly essential to the plot. The element that matters is whether or not it will entertain the majority of the readers - if it adds to the quality of the book.

That being said, it makes it all the more imperative to know what adds to the quality of the book. For damn sure there still needs to be some cutting going on. It just doesn't need to be as drastic. The publishing industry impressed on us the need to do things with as few words as possible - it would be easy to fall into the trap, when self-publishing, of disregarding the value of a good lean piece of storytelling for something pudgy and fat.

Now, I don't want my stories ultra-lean or fat. As always, the optimal spot lies in between. "Fat is flavor" but it isn't substance. I'll do us all a favor and leave the meat metaphor behind (it was making me hungry anyways) and summarize that point I'm slowly realizing: Cutting is still important, but maybe we can afford to lighten up with the knife.

To Authors: Work on the those summaries

I knew for a month and a half that I was going to publish the story at the end of February.

I had a time-frame for initial revisions, beta-reading, and secondary revisions. I had target dates for getting cover art done and formatting done. Yet somehow I still waited until the night I published The Three Fingers of Death to write the story summary - you know, the little description field you see on Amazon or Smashwords.

Stupid, stupid, stupid me.

It's an old truth that many writers never really get the hang of writing succinctly. For those still pursuing the traditional publishing route (which I am) the mantra is 'cut, cut, cut'. Agents and authors will go on for pages (ironic, eh?) about the need to trim the fat out of your book. Stephen King had a rule of thumb he received from an editor at some magazine which went something like: "Final draft = first draft - 10%".

I'm not sure how I feel about the general pattern of 'cut everything that isn't essential.' I think a lot of that pressure came from traditional publishing's need to save money on printing costs and the general impatience that came from the industry being overburdened with too many wannabe authors and not enough time to wade through them.  I'm okay with the odd paragraph of purple prose as long as it's a pleasant shade.

On the other hand, the story summary (or description, whatever you want to call it) is one place where the ability to write in a more taciturn manner comes very much in handy. Furthermore, you need to be able to use those few words to tease and tantalize the reader, hook them in exactly the way your opening pages should do (though if your story starts out slower, hooking them in the summary is a good avenue of attack!).

Needless to say, I will be re-writing the summary. Come to think of it, I need to do that for both my currently-available works, and I need to generally pay more attention to that aspect from now on. Especially in the self-publishing world, you can't afford to ever come off as an amateur. That summary is the first thing a reader sees of your book. You need to make it shine.

... and by you, I mean me.

(PS: The Three Fingers of Death now available on Amazon and Smashwords!)

...in which we second-guess ourselves

Now that the initial hectic preparation is over for my descent into the beautiful madness of ePublishing - getting a blog, a twitter, polishing up my first offerings, planning what I'll be publishing at later dates, etc - I've managed to stop and think for a second about one important question.

Am I sure I want to do this?

There have been nagging little voices all through the process, but I found it easy to ignore them due to the sheer pace. I was too damn busy for reflection. Now that I have to wait on a few things, I have the opportunity for some good, deep self-doubt. C'mon, you think the work is really that good? If this is the first stuff the public sees from you, your career is DOP! (Dead on Publication). Are you sure those 'free' stories you're planning to offer will entice readers?

To that last question - well, no. I'm not. The story I'm putting up for sale is easily the best short work I've ever done, but the other stuff - I think it's good enough. And I go back an forth on my own work enough (as I'm sure most writers do) that I can only trust the average of what I think, and what others think.

Self-Doubt is losing to good old fashioned impatience, though. I want to put myself out there. I'm tough enough to take the backlash, if it comes.

Edit: It occurred to me that in this business 'backlash' takes the form of 'deafening silence.'

Launch Pad

One of the most exciting things about the prospect of ePublishing is how wide a potential audience some of my less marketable ideas might have. Provided I gain any sort of notoriety at all, someone is likely to read just about anything I put out there - which is as sobering as it is exciting, really.

If we want to make sure we're taken seriously, we have to be very careful what we put out there.

I could publish my profanity-laced short story about a war between human colonists and nano-tech driven zombies - but should I?

I could publish little back-story explorations of characters and events in my first novel - but should I?

I could even publish the little snippets of poetry that I write, two and four line things that never got beyond a clever couplet or a heartfelt question - but should I? (Does the world really need more bad poetry?)

The answer is actually quite simple - no idea is too radical, no premise too cliche, so long as the writing is good. Authors turn old tropes into fantastic new stories all the time. As usual, it's all about the writing. I just have to make sure that everything I put out there stays above a certain bar.

Which is probably why the poetry will never, ever see the light of day.