Self-Publishing: Commodity vs. Art

Ebook sales surpassed 20% of the US book market in 2012. Also for the first time, a self-published novel hit number one on the DBW best-seller list. In light of these breakthroughs, the advice from some quarters to skip traditional publishers altogether and make a career strictly from electronic and on-demand publishing is gaining credibility.

For Wool author Hugh Howey, self-publishing is a great writer's best option and a mediocre writer's only option for career success. He posits an invisible army of self-published mid-listers supplementing or replacing their regular incomes with ebook proceeds. Howey's evidence is entirely anecdotal, but the sheer volume of anecdotes isn't to be taken lightly.

Has the long-predicted demise of the New York publishing model come at last? In a word: no. No less a DIY publishing advocate than Dean Wesley Smith believes that the industry has reached a state of equilibrium between electronic, on-demand, and traditional publishing. He shows that the basic business model used by traditional publishers for decades is indispensable, even for authors who become their own publishers. Another telling fact is that almost every high profile self-published author to top the digital best seller lists has signed a print deal with a traditional publisher (including Howey himself).

Jane Friedman points out some of the self-publishing career path's quirks, including the dominance of genre fiction and the perceived need to sacrifice quality for high product volume. In her experience self-publishing openly views books as commodities. Traditional publishers do as well (they are running businesses after all), but they tend to emphasize the artistic aspect of literature.

It's hard to argue with the raw numbers. Self-published authors receive 70% of every ebook sale and retain all the rights to their work. Traditionally published writers get 25% of ebook sales. They also get 12-15% of each print copy's cover price, but only after the advance earns out. Gaining this compensation requires giving away almost all rights to their work. Also, ebooks can theoretically remain available forever, while most print books have a shelf life of six months.

Despite the mathematical proofs, I remain unmoved by the arguments for skipping traditional publishers in favor of self-publishing. Financial gain isn't my primary motive for seeking publication. A fundamental fact of the literary industry is that it's the wrong business to get into if you're in it for the money. I write, edit, and redraft; send query letters and endure rejections because, like Howey said, traditional publishers only accept the top one percent of submissions. Material success does not necessarily denote skill; neither does popularity for that matter.

I am a traditionalist by temperament and conviction. Yes, many aspects of the old publishing model are outdated and simply unjust, but it can be fixed without sacrificing standards (e.g. Norman Spinrad's call for 50% ebook royalties). I don't presume to dictate which approach is right or wrong. Self-publishing works for lots of writers, and I wish them continued success. At this stage though, having Random House buy your manuscript for peanuts still seems like more of an achievement than servicing your boat loan on the profits of a misspelling-riddled teen mystery series.

Those are my current sentiments on self-publishing. I welcome your praise, rebukes, and insights.