Deadly Presence
J. Michael James
done a great job Mr. James and I am sure that it will hit the best
seller list. There is only one thing I have to complain about, well,
actually 2.
1: It's not ling enough!!! I WANT MORE!! (lol). Is there going to be
another?
2: Sgt. Ellis and Cpl. Hicks, man I hated it when they died. They were
way too cool!
Deadly Presence was real easy for me to follow and everything fell into
place real great. The special effects were outstanding; I could
actually picture everything as if it were on the BIG PICTURE!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Elisabeth Carey
>
> I just finished the book and I want to say that it is wonderful! You
> done a great job Mr. James and I am sure that it will hit the best
> seller list. There is only one thing I have to complain about, well,
> actually 2.
>
> 1: It's not ling enough!!! I WANT MORE!! (lol). Is there going to be
> another?
>
> 2: Sgt. Ellis and Cpl. Hicks, man I hated it when they died. They were
> way too cool!
>
> Deadly Presence was real easy for me to follow and everything fell into
> place real great. The special effects were outstanding; I could
> actually picture everything as if it were on the BIG PICTURE!
An unusually pathetic attempt at self-promotion; is Mr. James actually
dumb enough to think this will fool anyone?
In case anyone has any doubt, from Amazon:
Deadly Presence
by J. Michael James
Our Price: $8.95
Paperback - 177 pages (1999)
1st Books; ISBN: 1585002208 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.60 x 8.02 x
5.03
1st Books is an ebook publisher which also offers "printed and bound"
copies; the printed, bound edition is definitely secondary, and their
website offers no indication of what sort of physical quality it might
have. I suppose it's trivial to point out that I haven't heard of any
of the sf authors they list, except for the free Edgar Rice Burroughs
book they're offering. (Free in exchange for giving them your email
address, that is.)
Lis Carey
Andrew Plotkin
> I just finished the book and I want to say that it is wonderful! You
> done a great job Mr. James and I am sure that it will hit the best
> seller list.
Oh, you mean the book _Deadly Presence_, by J. Michael James?
You can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Matt Bishop
>
> J. Michael James wrote:
> >
> > 2: Sgt. Ellis and Cpl. Hicks, man I hated it when they died. They were
> > way too cool!
> >
> > Deadly Presence was real easy for me to follow and everything fell into
> > place real great. The special effects were outstanding
>
> dumb enough to think this will fool anyone?
It's mildly odd that he's issuing spoilers for his own book (at least,
I assume that's a spoiler; I'm not going to buy the book to find out),
but I like the assumption that "real easy for me to follow" is a
positive review.
Matt, wondering what sort of special effects you can have in a paperback.
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Matt Bishop wrote:
The scary part is that I wonder if the book is written in the same semiliterate
style.
Nathan Raye
J. Michael James
> actually
> dumb enough to think this will fool anyone?
> Deadly Presence
> by J. Michael James
> Our Price: $8.95
> Paperback - 177 pages (1999)
> 1st Books; ISBN: 1585002208 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.60 x 8.02 x
> 5.03
> 1st Books is an ebook publisher which also offers "printed and
> bound"
> copies; the printed, bound edition is definitely secondary, and
> their
> website offers no indication of what sort of physical quality it
> might
> have. I suppose it's trivial to point out that I haven't heard of
> any
> of the sf authors they list, except for the free Edgar Rice
> Burroughs
> book they're offering. (Free in exchange for giving them your email
> address, that is.)
> Lis Carey
Humm, Tell me LIZ, are you a book critic? If not, why you judging me
and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though 1stbooks is
fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
If not, well, need I say more?
So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
bad? NO! Someone has to start somewhere! SO I advise on not criticize
on HOW someone accomplish something.
J. Michael James
You can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound.
What the hell do you mean by that! The post that you saw wasn't from me
it was from my niece, which I had no idea that she posted one. SO, I am
suppose to be stupid just because I announce that I finally done
something that I dreamed about doing all my life. What is your problem??
Andrew Plotkin
>> actually dumb enough to think this will fool anyone?
>
> Humm, Tell me LIZ, are you a book critic?
I had written:
> You can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound.
I'm terribly sorry. I retract that statement, without hesitation.
J. Michael James
spoilers for my own book! I did NOT write it! A family member did,
which I chewed out seriously! Special effects, all books have them but
if YOU have an imagination then you should already know that.
Don't judge the book so early. The thing that was posted about HICKS
and ELLIS is only a fraction of the story. They aren't even the main
characters. And to THINK I would post something like that!!! NOT!!!!
People judged new authors so early and it is kind'a STUPID that they
do. Look at King, he had to start like I did and took him 10 years to
publish his first book.
Give me some credit people! This is my 1st time to do this!
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
J. Michael James wrote:
> Oh, you mean the book _Deadly Presence_, by J. Michael James?
>
> You can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you sound.
>
> What the hell do you mean by that! The post that you saw wasn't from me
> it was from my niece, which I had no idea that she posted one. SO, I am
> suppose to be stupid just because I announce that I finally done
> something that I dreamed about doing all my life. What is your problem??
Your niece uses your remarq.com account?
Nathan Raye
Mike Kozlowski
J. Michael James <mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>Humm, Tell me LIZ, are you a book critic? If not, why you judging me
>and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though 1stbooks is
>fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
>writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
>of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
>Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
For which I am becoming increasingly grateful.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mkozlows/
J. Michael James
the Book form of ALIENS. But I try to make the style in Deadly Presence
as different as I could from other books I have read. You have to admit
that some authors do leave a reader dumbfounded in their work. I worked
on the opposite to where if a reader stopped at a certain chapter then
continued it a month later, that they would know what was going on.
THIS IS TO ALL READERS!
If I seemed out of line on posting anything, I apologize. I am new to
this thing! And for the RECORD...AGAIN... the SPOILER that ya'll like
to call it, I didn't write it. A family member wrote it and I became
outraged when I saw it (though it does show me as the 1 that wrote it).
But still, don't judge it so early!
:)
J. Michael James
made sure that it wouldn't happen again.
Sten Thaning
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>Well, for one thing; and I'll say it AGAIN! I did not issue any
>spoilers for my own book! I did NOT write it! A family member did,
>which I chewed out seriously! Special effects, all books have them but
>if YOU have an imagination then you should already know that.
You all have the same writing style in your family? Was it by any
chance you who taught your son to write? Yes, thought so.
>People judged new authors so early and it is kind'a STUPID that they
>do. Look at King, he had to start like I did and took him 10 years to
>publish his first book.
Well, yes. That is kind of the point, isn't it? You see, all those
books he wrote the first ten years, who no one wanted to publish,
do you think there was a reason *why* they didn't want to publish
them?
(OK, in King's case they did. After he had became famous. Bad example,
I guess...)
>Give me some credit people! This is my 1st time to do this!
Oh, really? We never would have guessed.
- Sten
J. Michael James
You all have the same writing style in your family? Was it by any
chance you who taught your son to write? Yes, thought so.
___________________________________________________________________
SON?? Who said anything about a SON? Sounds to me that you have a
SHORT attention span.
I wrote:
People judged new authors so early and it is kind'a STUPID that they
do. Look at King, he had to start like I did and took him 10 years to
publish his first book.
You wrote:
Well, yes. That is kind of the point, isn't it? You see, all those
books he wrote the first ten years, who no one wanted to publish, do
you think there was a reason *why* they didn't want to publish them?
(OK, in King's case they did. After he had became famous. Bad example,
I guess...)
Sounds to me that you need to be a critic! NOT!!! And as far as me
being new, which you stated you could tell, well...don't be an A**!
Everybody's new to something and SO WHAT! Who are you to judge anybody!
YOU MUST BE AN ILLITERATE CHILD!
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
J. Michael James wrote:
> Unfortunately, my niece did (that 1 time about Hicks and Ellis) but I
> made sure that it wouldn't happen again.
Might I be so bold as to ask how she got your username and password?
Nathan Raye
J. Michael James
the discussion. Got me why it didn't ask for the password-n-all. :(
Sten Thaning
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>SON?? Who said anything about a SON? Sounds to me that you have a
>SHORT attention span.
Niece, then. Hint one: Every server in the world does not receive
every post in the instance it has been written.
I am, sadly, not gifted with precognition.
(Trivial superpower tie-in: The ability to respond to Usenet
postings five minutes before they are actually sent? That could
cause... confusion...)
>Well, yes. That is kind of the point, isn't it? You see, all those
>books he wrote the first ten years, who no one wanted to publish, do
>you think there was a reason *why* they didn't want to publish them?
>(OK, in King's case they did. After he had became famous. Bad example,
>I guess...)
>Sounds to me that you need to be a critic! NOT!!! And as far as me
>being new, which you stated you could tell, well...don't be an A**!
I stated? Hint two: There are more than one poster out here. It is
not a game of you-against-the-Usenet. Well, *normally* it isn't...
>Everybody's new to something and SO WHAT! Who are you to judge anybody!
Me? Judge? Let's see: I politely asked if there was a mere coincidence
that you and your niece have the same kind of posting style, as well
as posting from the same account using the same program.
I then asked if you could think of a reason why Mr King did not
publish anything that he wrote the first ten or so years.
The only judgement from my side was my opinion that his publishing
house shouldn't have published all those books they refused the first
time (or those he had the good sense to publish under a psedonym).
But then, I haven't read anything by King for about ten years. I hear
that he's getting worse. (Are we talking about the same King, BTW?)
>YOU MUST BE AN ILLITERATE CHILD!
Personal attacks in first response to my posts? Bad start.
Nah. You are not funny anymore. Go away.
- Sten
J. Michael James
Personal attack. Nah, not really. Guess I misread your post. Sounded to
me that you were attacking me 1st. I was wrong. So plaease forgive me
as I retract my attack.
Mike
J. Michael James
I retract my comment without a 2nd thought.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> same semiliterate style? I don't know due to the fact I never read
> the Book form of ALIENS. But I try to make the style in Deadly Presence
> as different as I could from other books I have read. You have to admit
> that some authors do leave a reader dumbfounded in their work. I worked
> on the opposite to where if a reader stopped at a certain chapter then
> continued it a month later, that they would know what was going on.
Some of us like a bit more challenge in our reading. You know, at
least the _possibility_ of being surprised by something that happens
in the book.
>
> THIS IS TO ALL READERS!
>
> If I seemed out of line on posting anything, I apologize. I am new to
> this thing! And for the RECORD...AGAIN... the SPOILER that ya'll like
> to call it, I didn't write it. A family member wrote it and I became
> outraged when I saw it (though it does show me as the 1 that wrote it).
>
> But still, don't judge it so early!
>
> :)
We are--unavoidably--judging the book by what its author has chosen to
post here about it.
You lied to us, Mr. James, and it was an impressively stupid lie,
right up there with the bank robber who gave the teller his address so
that she could mail him the cash she couldn't get at immediately.
First you own up to writing the original post, and then you claim it
wasn't you, it was a family member--but except for fewer typos, it's
exactly the same style as your new post.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> YOU WROTE:
>
> You all have the same writing style in your family? Was it by any
> chance you who taught your son to write? Yes, thought so.
> ___________________________________________________________________
> SHORT attention span.
>
>
> People judged new authors so early and it is kind'a STUPID that they
> do. Look at King, he had to start like I did and took him 10 years to
> publish his first book.
>
> You wrote:
>
> books he wrote the first ten years, who no one wanted to publish, do
> you think there was a reason *why* they didn't want to publish them?
>
> (OK, in King's case they did. After he had became famous. Bad example,
> I guess...)
>
> Sounds to me that you need to be a critic! NOT!!! And as far as me
> being new, which you stated you could tell, well...don't be an A**!
Yes, you did write that. And you also wrote:
#Well, for one thing; and I'll say it AGAIN! I did not issue any
#spoilers for my own book! I did NOT write it! A family member did,
#which I chewed out seriously!
And that's what Sten Thaning was responding to, in commenting on the
strange fact that all the members of your family seem to have exactly
the same writing style.
> YOU MUST BE AN ILLITERATE CHILD!
He's more literate than you are, by a wide margin, and _he's_ writing
in a foreign language, while you are presumably writing in your native
language.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> > > An unusually pathetic attempt at self-promotion; is Mr. James
> > actually
> > dumb enough to think this will fool anyone?
> > Deadly Presence
> > by J. Michael James
> > Our Price: $8.95
> > Paperback - 177 pages (1999)
> > 1st Books; ISBN: 1585002208 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.60 x 8.02 x
> > 5.03
> > 1st Books is an ebook publisher which also offers "printed and
> > bound"
> > copies; the printed, bound edition is definitely secondary, and
> > their
> > website offers no indication of what sort of physical quality it
> > might
> > have. I suppose it's trivial to point out that I haven't heard of
> > any
> > of the sf authors they list, except for the free Edgar Rice
> > Burroughs
> > book they're offering. (Free in exchange for giving them your email
> > address, that is.)
> > Lis Carey
>
Nope. I'm a librarian, and a member of a nonprofit small press that a
lot of people here are more familiar with than they are with 1st
Books.
> If not, why you judging me
> and my writing?
That's what we do in rec.arts.sf.written. We discuss books--including,
oddly enough, our _opinions_ of those books, and sometimes of the good
judgment or lack thereof of the writers of the books.
> Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT!
You're quite right. I haven't read it, and I don't intend to. There's
an awful lot of books out there, and your posts here have been very
helpful to me in estimating the likelihood that I would enjoy yours.
> Though 1stbooks is
> fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
> writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
> of writing.
I checked the list of sf titles; there are no authors there that are
known to me. I've been reading sf for over thirty years, and I read
rec.arts.sf.written regularly, and I read reviews from a variety of
sources. The likelihood that I've totally missed the existence of any
major sf authors seems slight.
> If you have published a book through a Traditional
> Publisher then I salute you.
I've edited a book for publication by NESFA Press, and I've helped
edit others for publication by NESFA.
> For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
That's because only about 10 out of a hundred are worth publishing.
Most of the stuff that's in the slush pile is truly, impressively,
unpublishable.
> If not, well, need I say more?
Published author are not the only people qualified to evaluate your
work, Mr. James. In fact, by publishing at all, you are _asking_ large
numbers of people, very few of them published authors, to judge your
work. Of course you would _like_ to them to judge it worthy and spend
their hard-earned money on, but they're not obligated to.
> So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
> bad? NO!
No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity publisher,
you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the unlikely
event that your book should happen to be good.
> Someone has to start somewhere! SO I advise on not criticize
> on HOW someone accomplish something.
First novelists get published every year, without falling into the
trap of vanity publishing. And please note that I did _not_ criticize
_how_ you got published--I merely observed that I'd never heard of 1st
Books, or (much more significantly) any of their authors who were not
long dead. I didn't say a word about vanity publishing, because until
you told us, I didn't know that 1st Books _was_ a vanity publisher.
Oh, yes, I did comment on the fact that there was no indication of the
_quality_ of the paperback editions, and that the paperback editions
did appear to be distinctly secondary to the ebook edition--which
raised the possibility that the paperback editions might not be of the
physical quality that most people expect when they shell out $8.95 for
a paperback book.
Lis Carey
Irv Koch
>
> She didn't need it for some reason. My browser is set to go right into
> the discussion. Got me why it didn't ask for the password-n-all. :(
Ah so. Many "sites," will "remember who you are" and/or otherwise NOT
ask for a password unless you specifically "sign out" at the end of your
session with them ... AND ... close your Browser and (IIRC) turn the
machine off before anyone else can get at it. Those sites are generally
not "high security risks" (like brokerages, banks, etc.). Onelist.com,
my.yahoo, my.excite, etc. tend to be the same way (not requiring
password each time).
You have just discovered why these sites advise users "LOG OFF AND CLOSE
YOUR BROWSER IF ANYONE ELSE CAN ACCESS YOUR COMPUTER." And with kids
around .... <grin>
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Kozlowski) wrote:
>In article <2750ac20...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
>J. Michael James <mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Humm, Tell me LIZ, are you a book critic? If not, why you judging me
>>and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though 1stbooks is
>>fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
>>writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
>>of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
>>Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
>
>For which I am becoming increasingly grateful.
It's actually much less than 10 out of 100, of course. Even before
the invention of the word processor it was 1 in 40, not 1 in 10, and
the ratio's gotten much worse in the past twenty years.
Or much better, from the reader's point of view rather than the
writer's.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 10/1/99
DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
>bad? NO!
In my opinion it makes you a fool, but not "bad."
> Someone has to start somewhere!
Why? Why bother?
> SO I advise on not criticize
>on HOW someone accomplish something.
The ends justify the means, then?
J. Michael James
me at all!
J. Michael James
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 1999 20:47:52 GMT, mkoz...@guy.ssc.wisc.edu (Mike
> Kozlowski) wrote:
> >In article <2750ac20...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
> >
> judging me
> >>and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though
> 1stbooks is
> >>fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are
> plenty of
> >>writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the
> field
> >>of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
> >>Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get
> accepted.
> >
> >For which I am becoming increasingly grateful.
> It's actually much less than 10 out of 100, of course. Even before
> the invention of the word processor it was 1 in 40, not 1 in 10,
> and
> the ratio's gotten much worse in the past twenty years.
> Or much better, from the reader's point of view rather than the
> writer's.
> The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update
> 10/1/99
> DRAGON WEATHER is now available -- ISBN 0-312-86978-9
Forgive me if my odds were wrong. :) My point being was just because
someone forks out money for self publishing, doen't make them a less
writer then others that have been more fortunate with the "BIG BOYS".
Everyone has a goal in life and should not be discredited on how they
reach it. Take for instance, Stephen King, it took him 10 years to
publish his 1st book "Boy and his Dragon" or something to that nature.
I know it had something to do with a dragon. Think of the pain he went
through cause nobody wanted to use his name...etc...etc. I don't want
to go through that, though I was a victim of fraud. My 1st publisher
went bankrupted the week this book was to be released. Yeah! I almost
gave up and told myself I was a FOOL! But, I am glad I didn't listen to
people that are negative about self publishing. Now I have a new
release and believe me it costs them (the publishers) a heck of a lot
more than it did me.
So, the question is, would I do it again? YES!! Cause hopefully one
day my writing will get recognized and who knows, maybe I'll be up
there with the rest of them "BIG BOYS"! :)
Mike
J. Michael James
mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> In article <P8G04.43288$oa2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:10:46 -0800, J. Michael James
> ><mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that
> make me a
> >>bad? NO!
> >
> >In my opinion it makes you a fool, but not "bad."
> go buy
> Dignifying Science, brilliant, brilliant stuff) to think this is a
> good
> absolute.
> >> Someone has to start somewhere!
> >
> >Why? Why bother?
> Paine, for
> instance.
> --
> In memoriam Walter Payton, 1954-1999, the greatest Bear of all
> time.
> "Being the fastest? I wasn't. Being the strongest? I wasn't. Being
> the biggest?
> I wasn't. I had something that nobody else had. I think I was the
> smartest."
> -- Sweetness
:) Like I said, someone has to start somewhere. If U have a dream,
follow it with all your heart and soul! No matter what!
William December Starr
J. Michael James <mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> said:
> Everyone has a goal in life and should not be discredited on how they
> reach it. Take for instance, Stephen King, it took him 10 years to
> publish his 1st book "Boy and his Dragon" or something to that nature.
> I know it had something to do with a dragon.
Stephen King's first published novel was _Carrie_, in 1974. His first
professional publications, I believe, was a short story, either "Cain
Rose Up" or "Here There Be Tygers." (Both were published in 1968; I
don't know which one came first.)
You may be thinking of _Eyes of the Dragon_, a 1985 novel.
(Data derived from the Internet Speculative Fiction Database at
http://www.sfsite.com/isfdb).
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Michael Alan Chary
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <P8G04.43288$oa2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:10:46 -0800, J. Michael James
>><mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
>>>bad? NO!
>>
>>In my opinion it makes you a fool, but not "bad."
>
> Hold up. I know too many people who self-publish comics (Everyone, go buy
> Dignifying Science, brilliant, brilliant stuff) to think this is a good
> absolute.
The comic publishing domain is rather different from book publishing. (Not
different in essence, but certainly different right now. Ask again in ten
years.)
The only self-published (as opposed to vanity-published) SF I've run
across are the two volumes by Daniel Keys Moran. Not a comparable case, as
he's demonstrated he can sell a book to a real publisher, and fact one of
those volumes is a reprint of his out-of-print work. I don't know whether
self-publishing was an economically effective move for him; but it wasn't
a *total* waste.
...That's a tangent. I don't think I need to hear about this JMJ guy's
publishing arrangements to decide he's a fool.
Larisa Migachyov
>
> >and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though 1stbooks is
> >fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
> >writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
> >of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
> >Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
>
> For which I am becoming increasingly grateful.
As a participant in a self-publishing venture, I am ashamed to be
associated with such as the above.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Quaternion Press Publishing House
Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Alan Chary) wrote:
>In article <P8G04.43288$oa2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 12:10:46 -0800, J. Michael James
>><mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
>>>bad? NO!
>>
>>In my opinion it makes you a fool, but not "bad."
>
>Hold up. I know too many people who self-publish comics (Everyone, go buy
>Dignifying Science, brilliant, brilliant stuff) to think this is a good
>absolute.
In comics it's definitely not an inherently foolish thing to
self-publish -- though it's still very, very risky.
In certain specialized areas, like family histories or
regional-interest books, self-publishing can make a lot of sense.
But paying to publish a science fiction novel? I'm sorry, but I can't
think of any exceptions to that being foolish.
>>> Someone has to start somewhere!
>>
>>Why? Why bother?
>
>Suppose you really want to see your stuff in print? Like Thomas Paine, for
>instance.
I'd _print_ it, then, not post it on the Web or pay someone else to
publish it.
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> The only self-published (as opposed to vanity-published) SF I've run
> across are the two volumes by Daniel Keys Moran. Not a comparable case, as
> he's demonstrated he can sell a book to a real publisher, and fact one of
> those volumes is a reprint of his out-of-print work. I don't know whether
> self-publishing was an economically effective move for him; but it wasn't
> a *total* waste.
>
> ...That's a tangent. I don't think I need to hear about this JMJ guy's
> publishing arrangements to decide he's a fool.
In some cases, self-publishing does make sense. We started a publishing
company because nobody wanted to publish a math textbook - and considering
how much money the vanity press publishers wanted, we've saved quite a lot
by doing the work ourselves. In the end, the work speaks for itself.
Publishing arrangements do not matter in the long run. Virginia Woolf
started a publishing company to publish her books (and her friends'
books). So what? This says nothing about the quality of her work.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>Forgive me if my odds were wrong. :) My point being was just because
>someone forks out money for self publishing, doen't make them a less
>writer then others that have been more fortunate with the "BIG BOYS".
Well, yes, it does. Those 99 out of 100 submissions that are rejected
are rejected because they're not as well written.
And considering some of the crud that does get published, think what
this means.
>Everyone has a goal in life and should not be discredited on how they
>reach it. Take for instance, Stephen King, it took him 10 years to
>publish his 1st book "Boy and his Dragon" or something to that nature.
Huh? Stephen King's first novel was CARRIE, and it was sold and
published fairly readily, though he did have a couple of lean years
before that.
>So, the question is, would I do it again? YES!! Cause hopefully one
>day my writing will get recognized and who knows, maybe I'll be up
>there with the rest of them "BIG BOYS"! :)
I started to write something snide, then thought better of it. I
think it very unlikely you'll ever succeed as a writer, but I've been
surprised in the past.
I do find myself wondering why you're bothering to argue with anyone
here, though. Surely we aren't your intended audience. You made your
announcement; why hang around?
Larisa Migachyov
>
> Humm, Tell me LIZ, are you a book critic? If not, why you judging me
> and my writing? Have you read the book? I DOUBT IT! Though 1stbooks is
> fairly new, I'd suggest that you do your homework! There are plenty of
> writers on the 1stbooks site that have made it quite well in the field
> of writing. If you have published a book through a Traditional
> Publisher then I salute you. For only 10 out of a hundred get accepted.
>
> on HOW someone accomplish something.
No, it does not make you bad; but vanity publishing is THE most expensive
way of seeing your work in print. Not to mention that they do little to
no editing, almost no distributing, and that no bookseller takes them
seriously.
I will not judge you on how you published your book. We nearly fell into
the vanity press trap ourselves (we were fairly clueless when we started);
fortunately, we got cheated early on and after recovering our money,
decided to start our own publishing company. The conventional publishing
houses were never an option for us; math books that deviate from the
standard way of teaching math do not do well with publishing houses.
I won't even judge you on your prose style; I have not read your book.
However, I will judge you on your marketing technique. I suggest you read
"Guerilla Marketing on the Internet" for some tips on how to market your
book successfully in this medium. You might be new to newsgroups, or
unfamiliar with the rules of netiquette; in this case, that book will be
very useful.
Danny Sichel
>>>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
>>>bad? NO!
>>In my opinion it makes you a fool, but not "bad."
> Hold up. I know too many people who self-publish comics (Everyone, go buy
> Dignifying Science, brilliant, brilliant stuff) to think this is a good
> absolute.
Yes, yes, but we're talking *vanity press* here. Not self-publishing.
Brenda
Larisa Migachyov wrote:
> However, I will judge you on your marketing technique. I suggest you read
> "Guerilla Marketing on the Internet" for some tips on how to market your
> book successfully in this medium. You might be new to newsgroups, or
> unfamiliar with the rules of netiquette; in this case, that book will be
> very useful.
>
People interested in knowing more about slush piles, publishing, and vanity
publishing, might want to have a look at the next issue of the SFWA Bulletin.
Ann Crispin and I have written an article about publishers and fraudulent
publishers, which we hope will be vastly informative. I will mention that the
actual printing and binding of a book is only a fraction of the job of
publishing, and not even the most important fraction. Marketing and
distribution is what the big publishing houses really do -- that's why they
call it "mass market paperback," after all. And that is where most
self-publishers fail. (Vanity presses do not even bother -- distribution and
marketing is the author's problem.)
And we've quizzed publishers about the slush pile statistics. They are
unbearably depressing.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>And we've quizzed publishers about the slush pile statistics. They are
>unbearably depressing.
I note that recently, when a full-time editor found a good novel in
the slush and bought it, she was sufficiently impressed by this to
more or less shout the news from the electronic rooftops, posting
about it on SFF-Net.
That's finding _one publishable novel_ in the slush at a major New
York publisher that was considered big news.
William December Starr
lawr...@clark.net said:
> I note that recently, when a full-time editor found a good novel in
> the slush and bought it, she was sufficiently impressed by this to
> more or less shout the news from the electronic rooftops, posting
> about it on SFF-Net.
>
> That's finding _one publishable novel_ in the slush at a major New
> York publisher that was considered big news.
Well don't leave us in suspense, man... what's the book and author?
Irv Koch
<solid and accurate info. snipped>
> distribution is what the big publishing houses really do -- that's why they
> call it "mass market paperback," after all. And that is where most
> self-publishers fail. (Vanity presses do not even bother -- distribution and
> marketing is the author's problem.)
Actually, some vanity presses will attempt to do distribution and
marketing. Mainly mass mailings to stores from the ABA's list, or
similar. The literature gets trashed with the other junk mail (at
stores I know of) without even being looked at The books themselves,
sent as samples, which tend to be depressingly bad, are a problem to get
rid of <sigh>. It HURTS to just trash books (and these tend to be hard
or fairly decent trade paperback bound). You can't give them away
because the customers barf when looking into them. Even the Union
Mission and the like tends to kick back the truckloads of the stuff than
accumulates. Libaries no longer keep the vast majority of books and
don't want donations they can't sell.
Eventually there's just no more room so they end up in a basement
somewhere, until the mold eats them entirely.
J. Moreno
> You lied to us, Mr. James, and it was an impressively stupid lie,
> right up there with the bank robber who gave the teller his address so
> that she could mail him the cash she couldn't get at immediately.
> First you own up to writing the original post, and then you claim it
> wasn't you, it was a family member--but except for fewer typos, it's
> exactly the same style as your new post.
Not quite on topic, but probably more so than the original post...this
reminds me of the Nero Wolfe book where he is hired to put a stop to a
string of plagiarism suits, and the key fact is that instead of it being
a bunch of copy-cats it was a single person using others as a front.
Which fact is uncovered by Wolfe by simply reading the different works
and noticing that they all have the same style.
Hmn, this tempts me to re-read some of the "Archer" Star Trek books and
see if I can notice anything...(I mean this ought to be easier to do
when you know who the author is).
--
John Moreno
J. Moreno
> J. Michael James wrote:
> > So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
> > bad? NO!
>
> No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity publisher,
> you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the unlikely
> event that your book should happen to be good.
I wouldn't want to go so far as that -- vanity publishing (particularly
of an ebook) could be a viable method of advertising and in the long run
be profitable.
Of course why you'd spend time and money on advertising when you haven't
yet been shown to actually have a good product...
--
John Moreno
Brenda
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:09:27 -0500, Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >And we've quizzed publishers about the slush pile statistics. They are
> >unbearably depressing.
>
> I note that recently, when a full-time editor found a good novel in
> the slush and bought it, she was sufficiently impressed by this to
> more or less shout the news from the electronic rooftops, posting
> about it on SFF-Net.
>
> That's finding _one publishable novel_ in the slush at a major New
> York publisher that was considered big news.
I asked her about this. This one novel was the first one worth publishing
found in the slush in 2 years. The publisher gets more than 300 submissions
a month. Do the math, and it's ugly.
However, I also note from our research that roughly 25 percent of slush is
manifestly and wildly unusable by the publisher even at first glance. They
publish romance, and the submission is poetry, or it's a religious and Bible
publisher and the slush item is vampire slasher porn. Such items are
returned immediately, unread, but nevertheless take up time, space, postage,
and energy. So the hopeful author should read submission requirements
carefully, and heed them well. Scattershot over-the-transom submissions are
the sign of the clueless, and waste everybody's time.
J. Michael James
> > Publisher then I salute you.
> edit others for publication by NESFA.
> Most of the stuff that's in the slush pile is truly, impressively,
> unpublishable.
> work, Mr. James. In fact, by publishing at all, you are _asking_
> large
> numbers of people, very few of them published authors, to judge
> your
> work. Of course you would _like_ to them to judge it worthy and
> spend
> their hard-earned money on, but they're not obligated to.
>
> make me a
> > bad? NO!
> No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity
> publisher,
> you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the
> unlikely
> event that your book should happen to be good.
> > on HOW someone accomplish something.
> trap of vanity publishing. And please note that I did _not_
> criticize
> _how_ you got published--I merely observed that I'd never heard of
> 1st
> Books, or (much more significantly) any of their authors who were
> not
> long dead. I didn't say a word about vanity publishing, because
> until
> you told us, I didn't know that 1st Books _was_ a vanity publisher.
> Oh, yes, I did comment on the fact that there was no indication of
> the
> _quality_ of the paperback editions, and that the paperback
> editions
> did appear to be distinctly secondary to the ebook edition--which
> raised the possibility that the paperback editions might not be of
> the
> physical quality that most people expect when they shell out $8.95
> for
> a paperback book.
> Lis Carey
Hummm. :) Maybe I did mess up with 1stbooks. I have though been
checking with other publishers (BANTAM....etc..etc) which all state
that an Author needs an agent in order for them to even read any
material I send them. I do believe that Deadly Presence has what it
takes to do well, and I have had 2 many ppl tell me so. But as the
information becomes more clearer, it was a GOOD story gone to waist.
All I have to say Lis, is THANK YOU. Thank you for your honesty and,
well, opening my eyes. Forgive me for asking but, how does one know if
an agent it ligit? Do you have any names that I could look into?
Again, I was a victim of fraud. The 1st publisher was an agent before
that.
So I made a mistake! BUMMER! But I have so many ideas for new books
with my 2nd already completed. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE
TWICE AND WAIST MY TALENT!
If anyone has any ideas please let me know. ok.
Mike
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
J. Moreno wrote:
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > J. Michael James wrote:
>
> > > So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make me a
> > > bad? NO!
> >
> > No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity publisher,
> > you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the unlikely
> > event that your book should happen to be good.
>
> I wouldn't want to go so far as that -- vanity publishing (particularly
> of an ebook) could be a viable method of advertising and in the long run
> be profitable.
I doubt it. Most booksellers do not take vanity presses seriously. He'd
never be able to get a distributor to take it. I quote from "On Vanity
Publishing" by Martin J.Baron (who was an editor in a vanity publishing
house):
The vanity contract, though it carefully refrains from guaranteeing sales,
makes elaborate provisions for sending out review copies, advertising, and
promotion - most of them largely bogus.
Take the matter of review copies. As the vanity publisher is well aware,
a review copy of one of his publications sent to the editors of
book-review media is commonly consigned to the wastebasket. The
vanity-press imprint, obscure to the general public, but well enough known
in the publishing world, stigmatizes the book and effectively consigns it
to oblivion the moment it is published. The only review which the author
may be lucky enough to obtrain is that furnished merely as a matter of
courtesy in a local newspaper or two. Anything more is passing rare.
Next, advertising. The vanity publisher's ad in The New York Times Book
Review takes the form of what is known in the trade as a "tombstone" - a
narrow, tombstonelike column in which numerous titles are advertised with
a minuscule amount of space devoted to each. To the practiced eye of a
bookseller or librarian, the vanity-press stigma is instantly discernible.
...
Finally, bookstore distribution. This can be dealt with shortly. For a
vanity-press book, there isn't any. Bookstores, as a matter of course,
refuse to stock, much less display, vanity books. There just isnt'
any reason for them to do so. The demand for vanity books isn't large
enough to justify the waste of storage and display space. ...
Those wishing to read the complete essay can find it in "The
Publish-It-Yourself Handbook", edited by Bill Henderson.
J. Michael James
Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> On 30 Nov 1999 05:16:25 GMT, mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael
> Alan Chary) wrote:
> >In article <P8G04.43288$oa2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> >><mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that
> make me a
> >>>bad? NO!
> >>
> >
> >Hold up. I know too many people who self-publish comics
> (Everyone, go buy
> >Dignifying Science, brilliant, brilliant stuff) to think this is
> a good
> >absolute.
> self-publish -- though it's still very, very risky.
> In certain specialized areas, like family histories or
> regional-interest books, self-publishing can make a lot of sense.
> But paying to publish a science fiction novel? I'm sorry, but I
> can't
> think of any exceptions to that being foolish.
> >>
> >
> >Suppose you really want to see your stuff in print? Like Thomas
> Paine, for
> >instance.
> I'd _print_ it, then, not post it on the Web or pay someone else to
> publish it.
> --
Ok, I got it! :) Stay away from ppl that you pay to get published. I
thought it was normal to do that (with a first book). Guess I was
gravely wrong. Question is, how does the public get word of a new
release other than the web site?
J. Michael James
(Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
> s.com>:
> Distribution:
> J. Moreno wrote:
> > Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does
> that make me a
> > > > bad? NO!
> > >
> publisher,
> > > you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the
> unlikely
> > > event that your book should happen to be good.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to go so far as that -- vanity publishing
> (particularly
> > of an ebook) could be a viable method of advertising and in the
> long run
> > be profitable.
> I doubt it. Most booksellers do not take vanity presses
> seriously. He'd
> never be able to get a distributor to take it. I quote from "On
> Vanity
> Publishing" by Martin J.Baron (who was an editor in a vanity
> house):
> Finally, bookstore distribution. This can be dealt with shortly.
> For a
> vanity-press book, there isn't any. Bookstores, as a matter of
> course,
> refuse to stock, much less display, vanity books. There just isnt'
> any reason for them to do so. The demand for vanity books isn't
> large
> enough to justify the waste of storage and display space. ...
> Those wishing to read the complete essay can find it in "The
> Publish-It-Yourself Handbook", edited by Bill Henderson.
> --
> Larisa Migachyov
> Quaternion Press Publishing House
> Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
> http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
A lot of good points there. And needless to say I have seen some
aspects of the nature. But, INGRAM is my distributor and offer their
database to all book stores. Barnes and Noble currently have my title
in stock. Also, I am having a signing at one of their stores about 150
miles away from where I live, which is a HIGH VOLUME store. And 2 more
with HASTINGS and BOOKS A MILLION. Does that credit anything at all as
far as 1stbooks went?
Louann Miller
>People interested in knowing more about slush piles, publishing, and vanity
>publishing, might want to have a look at the next issue of the SFWA Bulletin.
>Ann Crispin and I have written an article about publishers and fraudulent
>publishers, which we hope will be vastly informative. I will mention that the
>actual printing and binding of a book is only a fraction of the job of
>publishing, and not even the most important fraction. Marketing and
>distribution is what the big publishing houses really do -- that's why they
>call it "mass market paperback," after all. And that is where most
>self-publishers fail. (Vanity presses do not even bother -- distribution and
>marketing is the author's problem.)
Discovered while looking for something else; the FAQ on Mercedes
Lackey's web page (http://www.sff.net/people/highflight/FAQS.htm) has
practically all the basics about becoming a writer which can be
taught. Granted she repeats some of them two and three times in the
course of the FAQ. But it's all there including vanity press warnings,
agents, and when to quit your day job. Even with the repetitions, I'd
call it less than five printed pages of stuff.
Which only leaves the parts that can't be taught, i.e. "sit down and
write your pages for today, every day."
Louann, who has grasped all the parts that can't be taught and rather
less of the parts that can only be learned.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Starr) wrote:
>In article <DES04.43496$oa2.3...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>lawr...@clark.net said:
>
>> I note that recently, when a full-time editor found a good novel in
>> the slush and bought it, she was sufficiently impressed by this to
>> more or less shout the news from the electronic rooftops, posting
>> about it on SFF-Net.
>
>Well don't leave us in suspense, man... what's the book and author?
I'm sorry, I don't have her permission to post that here.
Mary K. Kuhner
>However, I also note from our research that roughly 25 percent of slush is
>manifestly and wildly unusable by the publisher even at first glance. They
>publish romance, and the submission is poetry, or it's a religious and Bible
>publisher and the slush item is vampire slasher porn.
I don't know the percentage, but another significant fraction
violates the basic "typed, double spaced, one side of the paper, on
decent paper" rules and is again rejected unread.
Still, the numbers are hard for me to believe. (I'm not disagreeing
with you, mind you: just shaking my head in bemusement.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Irv Koch
> Ok, I got it! :) Stay away from ppl that you pay to get published. I
PRECISELY isimo! As our friendly local neighborhood SF Writers of
America (pretty much the main professional group for this stuff) likes
to say: "The only checks involved should be the ones you deposit ...
the money is supposed to flow TO the writer." You're going to get lots
of advice on agents and such so I'll skip that. For now ... go to the
SFWA web site, Writers Digest, and something called Literary
Marketplace. I'm not dead sure the last two have web sites. WD is a
magazine. LM a book.
> thought it was normal to do that (with a first book). Guess I was
> gravely wrong. Question is, how does the public get word of a new
For fiction, science fiction and related especially, gravely as in DEAD.
> release other than the web site?
If the book is "professionally published," it will show up in LOCUS, the
material put out by the publishers (and there ARE some legitimates
"Independent Presses" and "e-publishers" around), various magazines
aimed at libraries, etc.
One other note: "Self publishing" is becoming more common but it
doesn't work for sf&f because the ratio of fans to writers is "bad."
There's just too much potential material for relatively too few BUYERS.
Self Publishing is best for non-fiction (like the specialized math book
noted in this newsgroup).
/s/Used to own a book store (twice), owns a teeny tiny chunk of a
legitimate Independent Press, and has hung out with people who actually
made money in this field for too long.
Irv Koch
Brenda has her editor friends, I've got some too (at Baen Books). The
percentage of instant garbage-level rejects is even worse than Brenda
said. I also played Story Contest judge once, long ago. Anyone can
crank out 90k words on a word processor today. They do. They send it
in. Never mind that the outfit they're sending it to doesn't publish
what they sent in. Never mind that the author didn't stop, compare the
submission against the average similar item on the book store shelf and
THINK about it .... and realize they'd better re do it. They send it
in.
SF&F is especially bad about this. The average person submitting
novels, there, it sometimes seems, may not actually read much.
Elisabeth Carey
> >unbearably depressing.
>
> the slush and bought it, she was sufficiently impressed by this to
> more or less shout the news from the electronic rooftops, posting
> about it on SFF-Net.
>
> York publisher that was considered big news.
She was dancing in the streets at WFC. Well, okay, dancing in the
consuite. But still.
Lis Carey
J. Michael James
What exactually is the SFWA Bulletin and what is their web addy? I am
getting a lot of helpful info. Please keep it coming.
Mike
J. Moreno
> s.com>:
Which is the last element in a destroyed References header -- tin 1.4.0
has been released, perhaps you could persuade your admin to upgrade
(this is the 3rd message today I've seen where this has happened in one
of your messages, although I didn't pay attention to the dates so it
COULD be less frequent).
> Distribution:
>
> J. Moreno wrote:
> > Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > J. Michael James wrote:
> >
> > > > So what if I paid a little to publish my material. Does that make
> > > > me a bad? NO!
> > >
> > > No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity publisher,
> > > you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the unlikely
> > > event that your book should happen to be good.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to go so far as that -- vanity publishing (particularly
> > of an ebook) could be a viable method of advertising and in the long run
> > be profitable.
>
> I doubt it. Most booksellers do not take vanity presses seriously. He'd
> never be able to get a distributor to take it. I quote from "On Vanity
> Publishing" by Martin J.Baron (who was an editor in a vanity publishing
> house):
>
-snip horrors of vanity publishing-
Sorry if I was unclear, I certainly wasn't advocating vanity publishing,
but merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY be beneficial as a form
of advertising. Giving it away at a con or something.
As you and others have said, it's not a bright picture, I'm just wary of
absolutes. In particular, I think that an ebook might work out well for
sales of a regular book -- for instance if you sale 50k copies, that'll
show that there is indeed an interest in your work, and while it won't
be as good as a prior book published with Baen or TOR....
--
John Moreno
Keith Morrison
> Everyone has a goal in life and should not be discredited on how they
> reach it. Take for instance, Stephen King, it took him 10 years to
> publish his 1st book "Boy and his Dragon" or something to that nature.
> I know it had something to do with a dragon.
Stephen King's first novel was _Carrie_. There were no dragons in
it. His second novel was _'Salem's Lot_. Vampires, but no dragons.
I'm not sure about _Rage_ (written under the Bachman pseudonym).
Then came _The Shining_. No dragons. Then the collection _Night
Shift_. No dragons I can recall. _The Stand_. Decided lack of
large scaly things.
King's first novel that had a title with "dragon" in it was, rather
obviously, _The Eyes of the Dragon_. Of course, that was published
14 years and 19 novels, 3 short story collection and 1 non-fiction
book after _Carrie_, so I don't think it counts as a "1st book".
Just in case you mistook Stephen King for someone else (remarkable,
I must say) I did a search for a book with that name. Oddly enough,
I can't seem to find any book with the words "boy" and "dragon" in
the title.
After that effort, I believe I can safely ask what the hell are
you talking about?
> Think of the pain he went through cause nobody wanted to use
> his name...etc...etc.
Think of the pain we're going through hearing you use his.
> I don't want to go through that, though I was a victim of fraud.
Can't see how a knife this sharp ever could be defrauded.
> My 1st publisher went bankrupted the week this book was to be
> released.
No connection, I'm sure.
> Yeah! I almost gave up and told myself I was a FOOL!
We should be so lucky. On the other hand, you were right about one
thing.
> But, I am glad I didn't listen to people that are negative about
> self publishing.
Indeed. You'd never get anything done, what with the shear number of
people involved.
> Now I have a new release and believe me it costs them (the publishers)
> a heck of a lot more than it did me.
You know, I never really believed my father when he said stuff like
that.
> So, the question is, would I do it again? YES!! Cause hopefully one
> day my writing will get recognized and who knows, maybe I'll be up
> there with the rest of them "BIG BOYS"!
I bet Rice, Bujold, Clough and the girls are happy you don't want
to hang out with them.
--
Keith
Brenda
J. Michael James wrote:
>
>
> All I have to say Lis, is THANK YOU. Thank you for your honesty and,
> well, opening my eyes. Forgive me for asking but, how does one know if
> an agent it ligit? Do you have any names that I could look into?
> Again, I was a victim of fraud. The 1st publisher was an agent before
> that.
>
> So I made a mistake! BUMMER! But I have so many ideas for new books
> with my 2nd already completed. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE
> TWICE AND WAIST MY TALENT!
>
> If anyone has any ideas please let me know. ok.
Dear god! OK, go to www.sfwa.org, and click on "BULLETIN." This is the SFWA
Bulletin, the magazine that the Science Fiction Writers of America publishes.
Go buy the last 4 or 5 issues -- it should only set you back $20 or so. Ann
Crispin and I are writing a series of articles about writer scams that Tells
All. All the other articles are vastly helpful to a young writer, as well.
Peruse these magazines minutely, and then come back and ask questions.
Brenda
Steve Taylor wrote:
> Brenda wrote:
>
> > Scattershot over-the-transom submissions are
> > the sign of the clueless, and waste everybody's time.
>
> This seems like a good spot to sneak a question in:
>
> What about intelligently targetted over the transom submissions? Are
> they a foolish way for a writer to go? Is having an agent verging on
> compulsory for a first time novelist, or is the slush pile a workable
> option?
Nope. There are still publishers reading over-the-transom submissions.
Furthermore, anybody can write a query letter to a publisher. If they
say they'd like to see more, then it is no longer an unsolicited ms.
Brenda
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> I made the distinction myself, and spent about five minutes trying to
> *define* the distinction. I gave up, but I still think there is one.
There is indeed, and it is not difficult. Self publishing means the author does
the work. She chooses the typeface, designs the cover, selects the cover stock,
pays the printer. Or she hires designers, etc. to do this work for her.
Vanity publishing means the author takes her work to a vanity press. The vanity
press then chooses the typeface, designs the cover, etc. etc. Naturally this
service does not come free.
We asked around while writing the last Bulletin article, and found that a vanity
press run of 1000 copies of a 100,000 word novel (an average length and a very
modest print run) will cost from $10,000 to $15,000 at a vanity press. (And
these are honest and well-established vanity presses, not the scammers who will
take the money and give you zero.) If you go to a reputable printer/binder as
a self-publishing author, a book will cost $3-$5 to produce, depending on how
many copies you have done -- say $5000 for your 1000 copies.
So you do the math -- which is cheaper?
Irv Koch
> Sorry if I was unclear, I certainly wasn't advocating vanity publishing,
> but merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY be beneficial as a form
> of advertising. Giving it away at a con or something.
In practice, that's usually counterproductive. Better, if he really
wanted to do something like that to label it fan fiction.
> As you and others have said, it's not a bright picture, I'm just wary of
> absolutes. In particular, I think that an ebook might work out well for
> sales of a regular book -- for instance if you sale 50k copies, that'll
At that point he could set up his own company. In fact, hard cash sales
of considerably less than that have been sufficient to interest major
publishers. They're so rare that the theory is "if he/they could do X,
with nothing going for them, then we could do 100 times x."
> show that there is indeed an interest in your work, and while it won't
> be as good as a prior book published with Baen or TOR....
Actually, 50k sales WOULD be as good as that. All he's got to do is
show the deposit slips <G>. Seriously. Want to guess what the average
print run, paperback, of a new author is? Rarely over 100k; of which
50k "sell through" is also "about" average (but may not get your
contract renewed, these days.
What our new poster has done wrong, among other things, (actually his
neice did it) was use "hype" of a rather poor quality. A simple
announcement that "X book now exists at Y URL" with a very brief
description, might have got a few people to look at it. And, if by some
miracle, a lot (1k, maybe even 500) actually shelled out hard cash for
it, THEN he'd have something to brag about.
Irv Koch
It's the "Open to the public and cheefully sold anywhere" version of the
magazine of the main professional organization for writers of the stuff
you're trying to do. <G> I think their "rep" just posted www.sfwa.org
as the URL. If you see a post from "Brenda," pay CLOSE attention.
Ditto Ann Crispin. They not only make money at this stuff, they're SFWA
officials.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> l...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
>
> >In some cases, self-publishing does make sense. We started a publishing
> >company because nobody wanted to publish a math textbook - and considering
> >how much money the vanity press publishers wanted, we've saved quite a lot
> >by doing the work ourselves. In the end, the work speaks for itself.
> >Publishing arrangements do not matter in the long run. Virginia Woolf
> >started a publishing company to publish her books (and her friends'
> >books). So what? This says nothing about the quality of her work.
>
> It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
> their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
> self-publication of an SF fanzine. This pastime is so utterly
> self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
> practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
> surely not about to make any money.
There are huge, vast, immeasurable gulfs between _self_-publishing and
_vanity_ publishing. Self-published books get taken much more
seriously, and self-publishing is the normal mode, or at least a
normal mode, in some types of literature. Vanity publishing is the
normal mode only amongst the totally inexperienced and naive.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> > s.com>:
>
> Which is the last element in a destroyed References header -- tin 1.4.0
> has been released, perhaps you could persuade your admin to upgrade
> (this is the 3rd message today I've seen where this has happened in one
> of your messages, although I didn't pay attention to the dates so it
> COULD be less frequent).
>
> > Distribution:
> >
> > J. Moreno wrote:
> > > > > me a bad? NO!
> > > >
> > > > No, but it does make you a fool. If 1st Books is a vanity publisher,
> > > > you'll never make a profit publishing with them even in the unlikely
> > > > event that your book should happen to be good.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't want to go so far as that -- vanity publishing (particularly
> > > of an ebook) could be a viable method of advertising and in the long run
> > > be profitable.
> >
> > I doubt it. Most booksellers do not take vanity presses seriously. He'd
> > never be able to get a distributor to take it. I quote from "On Vanity
> > Publishing" by Martin J.Baron (who was an editor in a vanity publishing
> > house):
> >
> -snip horrors of vanity publishing-
>
> but merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY be beneficial as a form
> of advertising. Giving it away at a con or something.
No. Vanity publishing would be a very _expensive_ way to get books for
that sort of thing. Self-publishing is a better choice; aside from all
the advantages of not having an imprint that anyone in the book
business will recognize as a vanity imprint, you will also get
everything that you pay for, which is something you can't count on in
vanity publishing. One of the charming stunts some vanity presses have
pulled is _printing_ all the copies they say they're going to
print--but only binding a small subset of that.
> As you and others have said, it's not a bright picture, I'm just wary of
> absolutes. In particular, I think that an ebook might work out well for
> sales of a regular book -- for instance if you sale 50k copies, that'll
> show that there is indeed an interest in your work, and while it won't
> be as good as a prior book published with Baen or TOR....
A vanity imprint is not just less good than Baen or Tor; it's an
active detriment.
Lis Carey
Brenda
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > DU> <3848669f....@news.demon.co.uk>
> > <821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> > Distribution:
> >
> > Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >>
> >> People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
> >> self-publishing.
> >
> > In a vanity-press situation, the vanity press owner makes money. In a
> > self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money. The author
> > loses money in either case.
>
> That's depressing, if true. Is it true? (Question cast upon the wind.)
>
Most of the time, probably. There are self-published books that make money.
In theory you can make money with a vanity-press book too. All you have to do
in either case is to sell all the books printed for more than it cost to print
them. The problem with vanity press works is that the initial cost is so much
higher than self-publishing.
Irv Koch
<stuff on cases that self publishing made sense, snipped>
> It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
> their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
Because they're trying to push it off as "professional" and/or are being
ripped off.
> self-publication of an SF fanzine. This pastime is so utterly
> self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
> practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
> surely not about to make any money.
Bingo. If anyone wants "their dream that they followed" to see the
light of day, all they've got to do is label it fan fiction and either
give it away or otherwise follow fanzine practices (trade, almost-free
for some favor or whatever, etc.) The big difference is that today's
technology makes fan NOVEL length material practical to distribute
electronically or, if you've got the money, small print run trade
paperback format.
Irv Koch
>
> Brenda wrote:
>
> > Scattershot over-the-transom submissions are
> > the sign of the clueless, and waste everybody's time.
>
> This seems like a good spot to sneak a question in:
>
> What about intelligently targetted over the transom submissions? Are
> they a foolish way for a writer to go? Is having an agent verging on
> compulsory for a first time novelist, or is the slush pile a workable
> option?
In SF&F, and to some extent in Mystery, it's just barely possible to do
what you suggested. There are also a couple ways to "jump the slush
pile." Writers Conferences with big time pro participation, other
networking (usually not worth the time many put in it but worth SOME
effort), etc.
Pete McCutchen
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>I just finished the book and I want to say that it is wonderful! You
>done a great job Mr. James and I am sure that it will hit the best
>seller list. There is only one thing I have to complain about, well,
>actually 2.
>
>1: It's not ling enough!!! I WANT MORE!! (lol). Is there going to be
>another?
>
>2: Sgt. Ellis and Cpl. Hicks, man I hated it when they died. They were
>way too cool!
>
>Deadly Presence was real easy for me to follow and everything fell into
>place real great. The special effects were outstanding; I could
>actually picture everything as if it were on the BIG PICTURE!
Given the coherence and intellectual content of this post, I think
I'll give Mr. James a pass. Somebody tell me if it turns out to be as
funny as _The Eye of Argon_.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>So U like calling people lyers. Think what you want! Doesn't matter to
>me at all!
>
So Mike, how old are you?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Hmn, this tempts me to re-read some of the "Archer" Star Trek books and
>see if I can notice anything...(I mean this ought to be easier to do
>when you know who the author is).
Don't keep us in suspense. Who is the author?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>You wrote:
>
>Well, yes. That is kind of the point, isn't it? You see, all those
>books he wrote the first ten years, who no one wanted to publish, do
>you think there was a reason *why* they didn't want to publish them?
>
>(OK, in King's case they did. After he had became famous. Bad example,
>I guess...)
First of all, Mr. James, you really need to learn how to quote using
generally-accepted Usenet quoting conventions. You should be able to
get your newsreader to do it automatically. If you can't figure it
out, tell us what newsreader you're using, and somebody will be most
likely be able to help you. (Not me, but somebody.)
>
>Sounds to me that you need to be a critic! NOT!!! And as far as me
>being new, which you stated you could tell, well...don't be an A**!
>Everybody's new to something and SO WHAT! Who are you to judge anybody!
Who is he to judge? Well, he's somebody who can write a cogent
sentence without resorting to junior-high stylistic devices, such as
multiple exclamation points. And his CAPS LOCK key seems to be
working functioning reasonably well, unlike yours, which seems to
suffer period malfunctions.
Truth be told, inarticulate posters are usually not pilloried on this
newsgroup, but you sort of brought it on yourself. I mean, first you
posted a poorly-written advertisement for your own book, and then you
deny posting it, claiming that some unnamed family member who happens
to write exactly like you posted in your stead. This is probably not
the best way to introduce yourself to a group of people.
More to the point, why should we shell out hard-earned dough for your
book, when composing a cogent Usenet post seems to be at the outer
edge of your rhetorical prowess? Aren't we, as potential buyers of
your wares, entitled to determine whether you will deliver an
entertaining, or even coherent, read?
--
Pete McCutchen
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > DU> <3848669f....@news.demon.co.uk>
> > <821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> > Distribution:
> >
> > Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >>
> >> People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
> >> self-publishing.
> >
> > In a vanity-press situation, the vanity press owner makes money. In a
> > self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money. The author
> > loses money in either case.
>
> That's depressing, if true. Is it true? (Question cast upon the wind.)
The first sentence is definitely true.
In self-publishing, the printer will make money because, after all,
they set their prices so that they will make money. _Most_ authors who
self-publish do lose money, becasuse it's tough to make a profit in
the publishing business, especially when you're a tiny operation with
only one or two titles to whet the interest of distributers and
bookstores. However, it's _possible_ for the author to make money in
self-publishing, and some do. _The Read-Aloud Handbook_, a runaway
bestseller in the early eighties, was originally self-published. (When
it became a runaway bestseller and the author couldn't keep up with
the sales anymore, he found it remarkably easy to sell the book to a
major publisher.:))
In a small press situation, well, most small presses are hand-to-mouth
operations, and the author is unlikely to _make_ a lot of money out of
selling a book to a small press, but she shouldn't _lose_ any; as with
any other legit publisher, the author should not be paying out money.
However, as with self-publishing, it's _possible_ to make money, and
some small press books become wildly successful.
Lis Carey
J. Michael James
wrote:
> J. Michael James wrote:
> >
> >
Don't think God had anything to do with this! And if and when I want to
come here and ask questions I will when I get ready to!!!
> Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
J. Michael James
But, I am glad I didn't listen to people that are negative about
> > self publishing.
> Indeed. You'd never get anything done, what with the shear number
> of
> people involved.
> > Now I have a new release and believe me it costs them (the
> publishers)
> > a heck of a lot more than it did me.
> You know, I never really believed my father when he said stuff like
> that.
What's wrong with saying that?
> So, the question is, would I do it again? YES!! Cause hopefully
> one
> > day my writing will get recognized and who knows, maybe I'll be
> up
> > there with the rest of them "BIG BOYS"!
> I bet Rice, Bujold, Clough and the girls are happy you don't want
> to hang out with them.
> --
> Keith
Why in the hell are you being so rude for!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
> If you see a post from "Brenda," pay CLOSE attention.
>Ditto Ann Crispin. They not only make money at this stuff, they're SFWA
>officials.
Brenda's only sort of an official -- she's on the Elections Committee
and is one of SFWA's experts on scams, but she's not technically an
officer or anything.
Yet.
Pete McCutchen
<lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>It's actually much less than 10 out of 100, of course. Even before
>the invention of the word processor it was 1 in 40, not 1 in 10, and
>the ratio's gotten much worse in the past twenty years.
>
>Or much better, from the reader's point of view rather than the
>writer's.
Do you remember the point that I made a while back about being glad
that get to pay Baen and Tor and the rest to go through the slush for
me? I think we're seeing a perfect illustration of that point, right
now.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>First novelists get published every year, without falling into the
>trap of vanity publishing. And please note that I did _not_ criticize
>_how_ you got published--I merely observed that I'd never heard of 1st
>Books, or (much more significantly) any of their authors who were not
>long dead. I didn't say a word about vanity publishing, because until
>you told us, I didn't know that 1st Books _was_ a vanity publisher.
After reviewing their web page, all I can say is that the material
looks to be of uniform quality. I was particularly struck by one
work, _Mountain Bike Man I-VI_. Read the scintillating description:
This is a collection of my first six Mountain Bike Man screenplays.
In these screenplays, MBM fights terrorists, high school students,
underwater monsters, aliens, races aliens in a mountain bike race, and
he helps his two government contacts keep their jobs.
Wow! I want to order the adventures of the Mountain Bike Man NOW!
I'm particularly anxious to here of his battle against the high school
students!!!
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
>Ok, I got it! :) Stay away from ppl that you pay to get published. I
>thought it was normal to do that (with a first book). Guess I was
>gravely wrong. Question is, how does the public get word of a new
>release other than the web site?
Let me apologize, in advance, for some of the posts which I just sent.
Had I known that you had the capacity for reason, I'd have been less
acerbic.
Pardon me, but I think that you're putting the cart a bit before the
horse, with all that concern about marketing the first novel. In the
science fiction world, first novels sell because people see them in
bookstores, or hear about them from other fans, or on a newsgroup, and
they buy them. The publishers do a bit of advertising, but that's
mostly directed at bookstore buyers, not ultimate customers.
And sometimes first books don't happen to sell, in which case you can
be in trouble, because bookstores decide how many of titles to order
based on the number of titles sold the last time. So you're right to
be concerned about marketing that first book. But you're wrong to be
all that concerned *right now.*
I would suggest that, as a first step, you might consider working on
your craft. Get people to read your stuff -- but not family members
and friends, who are likely to tell you it's wonderful. Find readers
who read a lot of the sort of thing that you like to write, and who
are brutally honest. Consider finding a writers' group. Enroll in
courses. Read a lot yourself. Develop a thick skin, and work like a
dog to get better.
Don't be offended, but while I thought that the reference to your post
a "semiliterate" was a bit much, I do think that you have a somewhat
immature writing style. Not to mention a propensity for grammatical
errors and awkward phraseology. Stephen King wasn't just waiting
around for his big break all those years; he was getting better at his
job.
In the process, keep writing. If you can go short fiction -- and your
novel is only 177 pages, long, so you might be able to do it --
consider marketing stuff to the sf magazines. Don't assume, if your
work is rejected, that it's because the publishers are evil.
If you produce longer work, send it to agents and legitimate
publishers who will read unsolicited manuscripts.
Now, as to your current deal with 1st Books, it might well turn out do
you some good, or it might be neutral, or it might very well cost you
quite a bit. If the current deals with booksignings and the like are
provided by them, it's probably worth it to go ahead. However, if you
have to pay for the copies of the books, if there's some sort of
ongoing financial commitment, you may consider hiring a lawyer and
trying to extricate yourself from the deal (depending on how much
you're on the hook for).
But, as a general rule, _you_ don't pay agents, and you don't pay
publishers. _They pay you_.
Oh and you might want to take a look at the SFWA web page --
www.sfwa.org. I think that they have a section dedicated to scams
aimed at would-be writers. You should probably have a look at that.
--
Pete McCutchen
Brenda
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:11:28 -0500, Irv Koch
> <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you see a post from "Brenda," pay CLOSE attention.
> >Ditto Ann Crispin. They not only make money at this stuff, they're SFWA
> >officials.
>
> Brenda's only sort of an official -- she's on the Elections Committee
> and is one of SFWA's experts on scams, but she's not technically an
> officer or anything.
>
> Yet.
>
Bwah-ha-ha, as long as I'm on the Elections Committee I am -ineligible- for
office!!! And they will never, but never, pry me off this committee...
Brenda
--
---------
Pete McCutchen
Migachyov) wrote:
>decided to start our own publishing company. The conventional publishing
>houses were never an option for us; math books that deviate from the
>standard way of teaching math do not do well with publishing houses.
How are your math books deviant?
--
Pete McCutchen
J. Michael James
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 18:58:22 -0800, J. Michael James
> <mikejame...@arkansas.net.invalid> wrote:
> >So U like calling people lyers. Think what you want! Doesn't
> matter to
> >me at all!
> >
> So Mike, how old are you?
> --
> Pete McCutchen
Old enough not to know to talk to you anymore.
J. Michael James
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
J. Michael James
rsn...@postoffice.swbell.net
Pete McCutchen wrote:
Hee, hee...
Nathan Raye
J. Michael James
(Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
> DU> <8222e9$lvc$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>:
> Distribution:
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> > Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > DU> <3848669f....@news.demon.co.uk>
> > > <821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> > > Distribution:
> > >
> > > Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> People have been making a distinction between vanity
> publishing and
> > >> self-publishing.
> > >
> > > In a vanity-press situation, the vanity press owner makes
> money. In a
> > > self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money.
> The author
> > > loses money in either case.
> >
> > That's depressing, if true. Is it true? (Question cast upon the
> wind.)
> always true;
> the second need not be. It is possible (I fervently hope) to make
> money
> as a small publisher. In that case, the author will make money as
> well.
> It always comes down to the quality of the book and the amount of
> effort
> spent on marketing. So far, I'm too inexperienced in the world of
> publishing to be able to say very much; Quaternion Press has only
> been in
> existence for less than a year.
> --
> Larisa Migachyov
I think I could add something to that as far as quality goes. The
format that 1stbooks offers (constructed by Lightning Press), is rather
good considering the print size. As far as making money, well, yes I
have made some. Not what I want to make but that is to be expected
sense Deadly Presence just came out.
As far as promoting the book, they have sent or suppose to send
articles to over 75 magazines. Don't know how much that is suppose to
mean to you and others but they state that Authors with them have been
interviewed by the NY Times. I have seen it myself. But, I think they
could do better. I have done a lot of it myself and all that I can
afford to do. Including some radio and TV.
Steve Taylor
> Sounds to me that you need to be a critic! NOT!!! And as far as me
> being new, which you stated you could tell, well...don't be an A**!
> Everybody's new to something and SO WHAT! Who are you to judge anybody!
Just a paranoid thought: This is a little too perfect - are we in the
presence of well constructed trolling?
S.
Alison Scott
>Forgive me if my odds were wrong. :) My point being was just because
>someone forks out money for self publishing, doen't make them a less
>writer then others that have been more fortunate with the "BIG BOYS".
Whenever I read posts like this they make my heart sing; and I resolve
to actually Knuckle Down and Get That Novel Written.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk & www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Multiple award-losing fanzine: www.moose.demon.co.uk/plokta
News and views for SF fans: www.plokta.com/pnn
Alison Scott
>In some cases, self-publishing does make sense. We started a publishing
>company because nobody wanted to publish a math textbook - and considering
>how much money the vanity press publishers wanted, we've saved quite a lot
>by doing the work ourselves. In the end, the work speaks for itself.
>Publishing arrangements do not matter in the long run. Virginia Woolf
>started a publishing company to publish her books (and her friends'
>books). So what? This says nothing about the quality of her work.
It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
self-publication of an SF fanzine. This pastime is so utterly
self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
surely not about to make any money.
Steve Taylor
> Scattershot over-the-transom submissions are
> the sign of the clueless, and waste everybody's time.
This seems like a good spot to sneak a question in:
What about intelligently targetted over the transom submissions? Are
they a foolish way for a writer to go? Is having an agent verging on
compulsory for a first time novelist, or is the slush pile a workable
option?
> Brenda
Steve
Andrew Plotkin
> l...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
>
>>In some cases, self-publishing does make sense. We started a publishing
>>company because nobody wanted to publish a math textbook - and considering
>>how much money the vanity press publishers wanted, we've saved quite a lot
>>by doing the work ourselves. In the end, the work speaks for itself.
>>Publishing arrangements do not matter in the long run. Virginia Woolf
>>started a publishing company to publish her books (and her friends'
>>books). So what? This says nothing about the quality of her work.
>
> It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
> their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
> self-publication of an SF fanzine.
People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
self-publishing.
I made the distinction myself, and spent about five minutes trying to
*define* the distinction. I gave up, but I still think there is one.
(And not just that vanity-press companies are known to bookstores,
libraries, and reviewers as discard-on-arrival.)
> This pastime is so utterly
> self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
> practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
> surely not about to make any money.
If you're doing it for ego points, and you're *still* doing it for ego
points, you're obviously getting some. Er, I mean, you're appreciated. You
are in fact doing Good Work, by the only definition that can be declared
without an unbounded discussion -- people like it.
Someone who goes to a vanity publisher and says "Here. Print this." may be
toting Good Work or Bad Work, but there's absolutely no basis to decide.
No part of their business involves discriminating based on content. I
guess that has to be their defining characteristic.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
Joe Slater
>It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
>their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
>self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
>practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
>surely not about to make any money.
I think we pity and feel repulsed by some vanity authors because we
know they're being cheated, but they don't.
jds
Larisa Migachyov
<821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
Distribution:
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Alison Scott <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > l...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
> >
> >>In some cases, self-publishing does make sense. We started a publishing
> >>company because nobody wanted to publish a math textbook - and considering
> >>how much money the vanity press publishers wanted, we've saved quite a lot
> >>by doing the work ourselves. In the end, the work speaks for itself.
> >>Publishing arrangements do not matter in the long run. Virginia Woolf
> >>started a publishing company to publish her books (and her friends'
> >>books). So what? This says nothing about the quality of her work.
> >
> > It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
> > their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
> > self-publication of an SF fanzine.
>
> People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
> self-publishing.
>
> I made the distinction myself, and spent about five minutes trying to
> *define* the distinction. I gave up, but I still think there is one.
> (And not just that vanity-press companies are known to bookstores,
> libraries, and reviewers as discard-on-arrival.)
In a vanity-press situation, the vanity press owner makes money. In a
self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money. The author
loses money in either case.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Quaternion Press Publishing House
Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
J. Moreno wrote:
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> > s.com>:
>
> Which is the last element in a destroyed References header -- tin 1.4.0
> has been released, perhaps you could persuade your admin to upgrade
> (this is the 3rd message today I've seen where this has happened in one
> of your messages, although I didn't pay attention to the dates so it
> COULD be less frequent).
I've tried; I will try again. And yes, it is a regular occurrence; I'm
too lazy to learn another newsreader, but I just might have to.
> -snip horrors of vanity publishing-
>
> Sorry if I was unclear, I certainly wasn't advocating vanity publishing,
> but merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY be beneficial as a form
> of advertising. Giving it away at a con or something.
>
> As you and others have said, it's not a bright picture, I'm just wary of
> absolutes. In particular, I think that an ebook might work out well for
> sales of a regular book -- for instance if you sale 50k copies, that'll
> show that there is indeed an interest in your work, and while it won't
> be as good as a prior book published with Baen or TOR....
Well, yeah; and with an ebook, at least you won't have 1000 copies sitting
in your living room (a very depressing situation).
The thing is that a vanity press imprint is a handicap in trying to sell
your book. You could definitely give it away, but it won't be taken as
seriously as an unknown press imprint.
Andrew Plotkin
> DU> <3848669f....@news.demon.co.uk>
> <821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> Distribution:
>
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>>
>> People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
>> self-publishing.
>
> self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money. The author
> loses money in either case.
That's depressing, if true. Is it true? (Question cast upon the wind.)
--Z
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > DU> <3848669f....@news.demon.co.uk>
> > <821s33$vvh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
> > Distribution:
> >
> > Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >>
> >> People have been making a distinction between vanity publishing and
> >> self-publishing.
> >
> > In a vanity-press situation, the vanity press owner makes money. In a
> > self-publishing situation, the small press owner loses money. The author
> > loses money in either case.
>
> That's depressing, if true. Is it true? (Question cast upon the wind.)
Well, I was oversimplifying a little. The first sentence is always true;
the second need not be. It is possible (I fervently hope) to make money
as a small publisher. In that case, the author will make money as well.
It always comes down to the quality of the book and the amount of effort
spent on marketing. So far, I'm too inexperienced in the world of
publishing to be able to say very much; Quaternion Press has only been in
existence for less than a year.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Distribution:
Hmm. I like the phrase "Deviant math books" - maybe we should use that on
our website. :) "If a dominatrix has 3 whips and 4 pairs of fur-lined
handcuffs, ..."
In any case, the way our math books are deviant is in their emphasis on
basic arithmetical skills. We do not waste the child's time in reviewing
things over and over again, or in "projects" - our book makes sure that
the child learns to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and that he/she
can solve word problems. There are plenty of drills, plenty of exercises,
and no fluff. The reason that no "mainstream" school publisher will take
it is that the first volume of our series - intended for 5-year-olds -
starts out with counting on one's fingers and ends with multiplication and
division. Since kids are not supposed to learn this fast, this excludes
us at once. They can learn at that speed; even slow kids can; but the
educational establishment doesn't want to realize it.
James Nicoll
>
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:11:28 -0500, Irv Koch
>> <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If you see a post from "Brenda," pay CLOSE attention.
>> >Ditto Ann Crispin. They not only make money at this stuff, they're SFWA
>> >officials.
>>
>> Brenda's only sort of an official -- she's on the Elections Committee
>> and is one of SFWA's experts on scams, but she's not technically an
>> officer or anything.
>>
>> Yet.
>
>Bwah-ha-ha, as long as I'm on the Elections Committee I am -ineligible- for
>office!!! And they will never, but never, pry me off this committee...
>
You're only inelible until they change the appropriate rules,
you know...
--
J. Moreno
> pl...@newsreaders.com (J. Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Hmn, this tempts me to re-read some of the "Archer" Star Trek books and
> >see if I can notice anything...(I mean this ought to be easier to do
> >when you know who the author is).
>
> Don't keep us in suspense. Who is the author?
From the ISFDB on LWE:
Star Trek Voyager
Star Trek Voyager
3 Ragnarok (1995)[as Nathan Archer]
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
10 Valhalla (1995)[as Nathan Archer]
And I do believe I've got both...
--
John Moreno
Mary K. Kuhner
>It all makes me very uncomfortable; we castigate people who publish
>their books through vanity publishers. And yet my primary hobby is the
>self-publication of an SF fanzine. This pastime is so utterly
>self-indulgent that we give the fanzine away -- as is the common
>practice with these things -- rather than attempt to sell it. It's
>surely not about to make any money.
It strikes me that the castigation of SF authors who use vanity
publishing is something that reflects *very* specific things
about the SF field (including, alas, the prevelance of scammers)
and not some deep immutable truth about publishing.
I'm a pretty successful research scientist with about fifteen
articles in big name journals, and every single one of them
was "vanity published" in the sense that I (well, my grant)
paid hefty page charges. The journals will waive charges if
you demonstrate sufficient need, but almost all publication in
my field, except for books, is done on the author-pays model.
I don't think it would take a big change in the sociology and
economics of SF publishing to make vanity publishing a reasonable
way to go. The Net may yet get us there. Similarly, Net-based
self-publishing could take off, given the development of an
adequate mechanism for allowing potential readers to sort the
wheat from the chaff (no one wants to read slush!)
At the moment we rely on editors to tell us what's slush and
what's not. There are other possible models. The genetics
journals use peer review, for example. "We'll send your
novel to our panel of peer reviewers, and if they give it
thumbs up it will go on our page" could work, if the page
owners were properly motivated to want only good material.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com