Aleathia Drehmer: This week we are going to be discussing self-publishing. There seems to be quite a bit of it going on and it would be good to hear everyone's opinions for and against. So here are the questions: "What are the effects of self-publishing on today's small market? Do you think that publishing your own work, regardless of an unbiased opinion to its' quality, decreases a writers credibility? Do you think that self-published works are taken seriously?"

Pat King: If you can get used to the fact that you're only going to sell a handful of copies, fine. A publisher, even a small press publisher is going to be an asset when you're trying to sell books. If you plan to go on a book tour to promote it, right or wrong, it appears more legitimate to the bookstore if you have a publisher behind it. Plus, if your work gets rejected left and right, there might be a reason, you know?

Karl Koweski has never self-published. And he's one of the biggest names on the scene. Like all of us, he's had his work rejected. And yet he carries on.

Even the Underground Literary Alliance, for all their chest-pounding ravings about DIY and zine culture have their books published by Out your Backdoor Press.

OK. I have to make it clear that I'm talking specifically about prose writers. Poets are in a pretty bad way if they want to publish something bigger than a chapbook. There are plenty of chapbook publishers for poetry but very few doing full-length collections. The supply so outweighs the demand in poetry that you're almost forced to self-publish.

Look, the bottom line is that things work best when there's a division of labor. When a writer has someone handling the publishing side of things, they can spend more time becoming a better writer and writing more stuff.

OK, I guess I have to admit here that I recently self-published a chapbook of my short stories. This was mainly for myself, so I'd have a nice hardcopy of my better stories and so that I would have something to give to friends and others that would like to know exactly what I've been wasting my time with all of these years. Besides a couple of reviews, there will be absolutely no promotion for it. I'll probably only sell maybe one or two copies from the Outsider Writers website. And I'm fine with that. If I wanted anything beyond this, I would have looked for a publisher.

Michael Grover: Self publishing of chapbooks ect. has been done a long time. I believe it was started by the beats. Recently it has taken on a whole new level with publicity on the internet. It does not take a lot of money or know how to create your own website. I have published two of my own chapbooks in the last year and through ten years of doing it have developed a pretty efficient system. I believe self published work is very neccesary, rather than sit around and wait for the big publisher guy who probably is not coming, it gives the writer the option to get up off their ass and do it theirself. As far as the taken seriouse part you have to ask yourself the question. If the writer was being taken seriouse by the mainstream lit world (Who would be the ones to look down their noses at this effort.) were taking the writer seriouse, then the writer would not need to be printing their own chapbook. These days there are other options, vanity presses that charge too much money, and then there is the Lulu option. I'll stick with my chapbooks for now. This way I maintain more control over the situation.

Pat King: I wasn't talking about a big publisher. There are plenty of indie presses.

Michael Grover: True but I think the indi presses are less likely to come knockin at your door because they don't have the budgets the big guys have. Pat that was in no way a responce to your post. When I logged in it was not up yet and I did not read it until I posted that.

Zachary C. Bush: Hello all. This is definitely an interesting topic. Prior to reading very talented self-publish chapbook and prose writers such as Misti-Rainwater Lites and J.D. Nelson (who have put out GREAT WORK through self-publishing), I thought very poorly of self-published work. This opinion was only fueled by all of the “pay for publishing your poem” web pages and poetry.com (I believe it is). Misti and J.D. helped open my eyes to a topic that I still don’t feel great about…

I have such conflicting views on this subject. On the one hand, the writer who self-publishes, especially through lulu.com, can get his or her work out at quite a quick pace and without the lag of a press publication schedule. However, that being said, I have had two individual chapbook collections of poetry accepted this year through two different book presses and I so far I have not run into any time-issues that have been too brutal to handle. In fact, the projected time range projection is fairly swift.

After getting my first manuscript accepted by Scintillating Publications in February, I forgot about the manuscript (because it was then out of my hands and into their press) and I got back into the art of writing that night and into the next three months, composing about forty poems, thirty-five of which would make up my eventual a second chapbook manuscript that was just accepted by Pudding House Publications last week.

So far, I have not run into any issues with having to wait forever to hear back on a manuscript either. However, I am a young writer, nearly 24, with, hopefully, many years of writing ahead of me and my willingness to self-publish could change. I have not closed my mind to self-publishing a chapbook or book in the future, but I hope to always exhaust the real presses first. If I have to weed through rejections and wait a while then I should write more in between the pending “lag-time” periods.

Here is how I see it. I have been putting my work “out there” for the past two years. The first year I got so many rejections from small press journals that I cannot even keep count of. I appreciate all of those rejections and still get some from time to time today. Rejection slips are just as much a part of the literary world, be it “underground” or “mainstream,” as are acceptances. In a way, getting tons of rejections helped me realize that my pieces were not as good as I thought they were. Those rejections helped me put an invisible chip on my shoulder and make myself work harder and write things truer and on a higher level. I had to tear everything up and start over many times. Today I don’t need the editors’ approval as much as my own. But, if I self-published too much, I would fear that I might lose a sense of self-criticism.

After having a pretty wild and surprising year (as it relates not only to my life and to the directions that I am trying to push with my own writing), I see rejection and acceptance slips as the same thing.

Either way, publication is only one small part of the greater act of writing. I am a writer and so I write. If I am too wrapped up in publishing then I am not writing enough. If the writings are flowing well then they will get published frequently. When a piece is appropriate for a journal or e-zine then I will send it. If the piece is to the personal-liking of the editors then they will accept it. If not, then there is always a home for a piece.

Bottom line, I like the process of writing and submitting my work to real people. I like seeing what others think of whatever I am working on. Also, I tend to produce a lot more when someone else is handling my manuscript, individual poem, essay, or story. Once I have had enough with revising a piece over and over again, I want to get it out of my hands so I can work on something new. I am usually working on an old piece or something new constantly.

If I had to self-publish, then I think more time would be deducted from productivity and contemplation through the act of designing the chap or book. I would rather have someone else publish and promote my work, be it a journal or press.

Sorry. I hope I didn’t repeat myself too much. I do that sometimes when I get rolling with a subject.

But, if Misti and J.D. and other fine writers can do it and succeed with self-publishing then more power to them and I will continue to read their work as long as it comes out!

Michael Grover: Maybe your writing works with the presses. Congratulations to your success.

Pat King: Zachary brings up a good point. I mean, there's so much talk about publishing. Shouldn't a writer be concerned with writing? I think publishing should be a very far second to writing. Man, keep at it with the writing and the publishing end will take care of itself. No?

Zachary C. Bush: Mike....I didn't mean it in a boasting manner. Writing is writing and publications are always up and down...hot and cold.

What I mean't was that I like taking the risk of throwing stuff out there. I am not opposed to self-publishing neccesarily. I would just rather try out the presses and if I had a manuscript that I really liked, that no one else like, then I would self-publish it if I thought that it would do really well. Sometimes, many times, presses cannot see a truely experimental piece-- as with the Beats-- and today they are very much appreciated. Have you ever read J.D. Nelson's xiii? It is self-published and one of my favorite chapbook collections as of late. Regardless of a presses acceptance my writing is bent towards and a part of the "lit. underground" which includes presses and self-published works.

Pat. That attitude seems to work for me. Art is art. It is like a marathon...something to hopefully partake in over the long hall--for life. Writing is not a 100yr dash. I believe that publications will follow good writing in time. I don't want to be the kind of writer, and I have seen them, that get one or two poems published online or in print and then don't write again until "they feel moved" which could be a lag of forever. Resting on one's laurels is the worst any artist can do!

Last update : 24-11-2007 22:33

Average user rating

   (0 vote)

Display 2 of 2 comments