Author Sandra Ruttan has blogged at length on numerous sites about her problems with the MWA taking an ethical stand against Harlequin's business practices. She writes, in part:
However, in all of this, do you notice what isn’t discussed? What is and is not eligible is determined by guidelines involving advances and ethical treatment of authors.
Nobody’s talking about the caliber of writing, the quality of the books.
She's absolutely right. Because no professional writing or performing organizations bases their membership on subjective judgments on the quality of a person’s work. The MWA, SFWA, RWA, Horror Writers Association, Writers Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild, Authors Guild, etc. all use a set of objective criteria to determine who qualifies for membership and which companies qualify as approved (or, in the case of WGA, SAG, DGA, as signatories). The only time they use quality of the work as criteria is in bestowing their awards…all of which are for work produced, published or performed by individuals and organizations that met their criteria.
Her beef, and one echoed by many self-published authors (which she is not, btw), seems to be that professional organizations have professional standards and not everyone can meet them. That’s true. It’s also true of professional organizations in every other field. She went on to say, in the comments to her initial posts:
It’s the authors who had no part whatsoever in this business decision, who a week ago were “legitimately” published who are now no longer with an approved publisher, when not one single thing about the writing, contracting, editing and production of their book has changed that I’m thinking about.
Those authors are unaffected. They remain active members and their books are eligible for Edgar consideration. Only those novels contracted with Harlequin after Dec. 2 are affected by the decision.
If Sandra is truly concerned about the welfare of authors, I would hope that she would be as troubled as MWA, RWA, SFWA, and HWA are by the unethical conflict of interest inherent in the integration of Harlequin’s traditional publishing program and their pay-to-publish venture.
Sandra casually dismisses ethical concerns as irrelevant and something that the MWA, SFWA, RWA and HWA shouldn't be bothering with. I think she's wrong.
It’s my belief that the strong stand taken by these organizations will be a wake-up call to other publishers considering pay-to-publish ventures to avoid unethical conflicts-of-interest and to keep their traditional and pay-to-publish operations separate (as Random House did with Xlibris). If publishers maintain this separation, it will be far less likely that writers will be taken advantage of…and will go into pay-to-publish agreements with a more accurate view of what they are getting for their money. In the end, isn’t that good for everybody?
Sandra goes on to say that she feels that the quality of the books should be the one and only standard across the board.
And when it comes to awards, damn straight the number one concern should be quality of the books, not who published them.
Let’s take that thought one step further. Not every movie that's produced is eligible for an Oscar. There are very strict rules regarding which films qualify for consideration and which don’t (for instance, direct-to-DVD movies do not qualify, even if they are better than anything in the theatres). Should all movies, regardless of who makes them, where they are screened, or any other consideration, be eligible for an Oscar?
The same is true of Emmy awards. There are very strict rules about eligibility there, too. Should everything shown on a television screen, regardless of whether it was on a major broadcast network or not, be eligible for an Emmy?
The WGA awards are only open to scripts written under WGA contract. Does she believe those awards should be open to anybody who has written a produced script for anybody?
I'm sure you can see what I am getting at. The MWA is not alone. Professional organizations have professional standards…for membership, for approved auspices, and for their awards. That’s the way it is.
It’s my belief that the strong stand taken by these organizations will be a wake-up call to other publishers considering pay-to-publish ventures to avoid unethical conflicts-of-interest and to keep their traditional and pay-to-publish operations separate (as Random House did with Xlibris).
I hope you’re right, Lee. I hope Harlequin/DellArte falls flat on its face and doesn’t make a penny. Because if it’s profitable, other publishers will do it, including the ‘linking”, and they’ll do it no matter what MWA or RWA or SFWA says. And then what?
“Because no professional writing or performing organizations bases their membership on subjective judgments on the quality of a person’s work.”
Actually, that’s not true. The International Thriller Writers (ITW), for example, allows a self-published author to be considered for admission based on the strength of the author’s books. The ITW’s membership qualifications state:
“With particular regard to self-published books, where there is no publisher beyond the author, any determination of the author being a qualified publisher shall be on a case-by-case basis and such factors as the work itself, the breadth of its marketing, the extent of its distribution, the editorial process, its sales, the author’s personal history, reviews in recognized publications, and any other factor relevant to the particular situation may be considered in making such determination. Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.”
You can see that there is a very big difference between a progressive, open-minded organization like ITW and an antiquated, prejudicial organization like MWA.
You left out a big chunk of ITW’s standards and failed to mention they’ve only let in 3 self-published writers. Here are some of the PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS that you omitted and that writers have to meet in order to join:
“Active Membership
This membership is available to thriller authors published by a commercial publishing house including genre-related non-fiction. Generally, these publishers pay an advance against royalties, edit books, create covers, have a regular means of distribution into bookstores and other places where books are ordinarily sold, and receive no financial payments from their authors.”
They also have PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS for publishers, which you also notably omitted. Here they are:
“Qualified Publishers are those which do not contractually obligate their authors to pay for such services as advertising, sales, marketing, editing, or promotion of their books. A qualified publisher would normally acquire rights to a publication because it is investing capital; undertaking marketing efforts with a sales and/or marketing force; and utilizing the sale of books as means of recouping capital outlays and realizing a profit.
There are varying means of accomplishing these goals. Qualified publishers invest in their authors in a variety of different and imaginative ways. In deciding whether a publisher is qualified, ITW may consider samples of the publisher’s contracts with authors; whether and how the publisher pays advances; does the publisher charge fees to authors for any service; is there a sales force; the publisher’s distribution practices, are the publisher’s books reviewed in recognized publications; documented complaints against any publisher; and does the publisher expend money for marketing and advertising for either the author and/or the work. Again, no one factor is determinative, nor would the lack of one be fatal. Recognizing that good judgment and reasonableness should always govern, any and all determinations of whether a publisher is qualified will be made on a case-by-case basis.
With particular regard to self-published books, where there is no publisher beyond the author, any determination of the author being a qualified publisher shall be on a case-by-case basis and such factors as the work itself, the breadth of its marketing, the extent of its distribution, the editorial process, its sales, the author’s personal history, reviews in recognized publications, and any other factor relevant to the particular situation may be considered in making such determination. Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.”
So, in other words Jim, Lee was right.
“You left out a big chunk of ITW’s standards and failed to mention they’ve only let in 3 self-published writers.”
ITW has an approved publisher list and standards for those publishers to meet. That’s not the point, though. The point is that ITW ALSO allows any author, self-published or not, to apply for membership based on the strength of the author’s books. MWA, by stark contrast, automatically excludes all self-published authors as unworthy.
As far as your accusation that only 3 self-published authors have been admitted to ITW, it doesn’t appear that you are even a member of that organization. Thus I’d be interested to know how you could possibly have such knowledge.
Jim wrote: “The point is that ITW ALSO allows any author, self-published or not, to apply for membership based on the strength of the author’s books.”
No, that’s not true (nor the point). If you look at the wording of ITW’s professional standards, they are considering much, much more than that.
“With particular regard to self-published books, where there is no publisher beyond the author, any determination of the author being a qualified publisher shall be on a case-by-case basis and such factors as the work itself, the breadth of its marketing, the extent of its distribution, the editorial process, its sales, the author’s personal history, reviews in recognized publications, and any other factor relevant to the particular situation may be considered in making such determination. Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.”
In fact, they clearly state that self-published authors “bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.” (a status determined by ITW’s professional standards).
Perhaps that’s why ITW has admitted so few self-published authors among the ranks of their Active members:
http://www.thrillerwriters.org/connect/members.php?sn=authors
Professional standards, Jim. That’s what we are discussing here. And like it or not, ITW clearly has’em just like every other professional organization. There’s a reason ITW hasn’t opened the door to anybody who has printed their book through a vanity press.
Lee
Actually, Lee, I’m addressing a bigger issue here than whether author organizations have or should have professional standards and/or criteria for their writers. I’m addressing the issue of prejudice.
Until recently, books only existed in printed form. Printing and distribution cost money. Publishers, all of whom have finite capital, made economic decisions. A system of review developed whereby literary agents became the gatekeepers. Based on subjective decisions by agents and publishers, some writer’s books make it to print and some didn’t. Groups such as the MWA then used that “published by a traditional publisher” versus “not published by a traditional publisher” as a bright line test to gauge whether someone was a legitimate author or not. A corresponding snobbery developed that, quite frankly, continues to exist in full force today.
What’s different today, however, is that the publishing landscape has forever changed. Print publication is no longer the exclusive venue for books. We now have Kindle, Nook, etc. Authors no longer need agents or traditional publishers or even paper books, for that matter. Authors every bit as good as those traditionally published are now emerging.
ITW is one of the more recent groups to form, and the forward thinking by the founders of that organization realized that the bright line test of the past was too exclusive. Rather than automatically exclude authors just because the test was easy to apply, ITW decided to add a mechanism to allow members into the mix who weren’t necessarily traditionally published.
This is a window of opportunity for other groups such as MWA to follow ITW’s lead. The groups who don’t will become more and more antiquated with each passing day. Some Boards will shed their prejudice and lead their organizations into the future. Some will cling to past practices and marginalize their organizations into something that the real publishing industry, particularly in its evolved state, will no longer care about or for that matter even want to be associated with.
I wonder what Sandra Ruttan has to say about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in which membership is by invitation only.
If I remember correctly, to join the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, not only do you have to meet all kinds of professional criteria, but you have to get three existing members to sponsor you. The quality of your work is not one of the criteria for membership. Quality matters when you’re competing for an Emmy…but only ATAS members can vote for’em. According to Sandra and Jim, I suppose that anybody who shoots a video for YouTube should be eligible for membership and Emmys.
Lee
I remember back thirty-some years ago when there was a small group of sf writers who came up with some kind of litmus test for what constituted real sf and what did not. It died aborning. Anything that subjective is ultimately going to lead to a lynch mob. Excellent response, Lee.
“According to Sandra and Jim, I suppose that anybody who shoots a video for YouTube should be eligible for membership and Emmys.”
Lee, I’m not proposing that author groups not have standards. Whether they do or not is their business, not mine. What I’m saying is that groups who set the standard in terms of publisher-criteria alone are using an antiquated concept that is getting more and more irrelevant every day.
It is the author’s book that defines the author, not the publisher of the book. Albeit, that’s a harder concept to apply, but nevetheless the proper one.
As you know, I published a lot of comments on your blog in 2006 when my first book came out, advocating the same arguments I am making today. Not much has changed in terms of author organizations since then, other than the forward thinking employed at ITW, which I personally believe should be emulated by all groups.
I’ll check back again in 2012. Right now I’m going back to writing Frantic Laws.
I’ve already said I think that MWA did what it had to do (despite my misgivings about the potential for where this is going), but I have to say this:
Questioning whether the standards we have are the right ones is NOT the same as saying there should be no standards at all. This is the same tack you took on the Richard Aleas/Charles Ardai issue. I didn’t like it then, and I still don’t like it, even while I agree with MWA’s position this time.
Attempting to quash dialogue on this or any subject by dismissing it with “oh, I guess you think we should just have no standards at all” is not helpful to anyone, not even MWA.
Lee, I wanted to thank you for pointing out that our objection has been to the Harlequin/Dellarte imprint is on ethical lines. As a point of interest, SFWA allows any work, including self-published and electronic books, to be eligible for the Nebula Awards. In fact, one of the ones I’m voting for, personally, is a self-published ebook.
Your commenter is correct that where and how a book is published is not always related to the quality, but, the reason I read this particular ebook is that I was familiar with the author’s work through her commercially published novels.
And this brings me to the next point. “Traditional publisher” is a phrase coined by PublishAmerica. Commercial publishing is probably more accurate as a term for what our members tend to focus on. Why? Because “traditional” implies a concern with the status quo and old technologies. Commercial implies an interest in being in the stream of commerce, or to put it simply, getting paid.
Organizationally, we are interested in promoting SF and Fantasy as genres and the welfare of our membership. That welfare includes making sure they are paid and not taken advantage of. Writers who only want exposure have a different focus than do writers who want to be paid. There might be some overlap, but there are some fundamental differences. Members have qualified for SFWA with ebooks and we have publishers on the roster who use POD. These are technologies. The thing that all our members have in common is that they have been paid a “professional” wage for their work.
To do anything besides having clear, measurable criteria would mean devolving into “this is good because I said so.”
—
Mary Robinette Kowal
Secretary, SFWA
Let’s turn the question around. Lee, you’re on (chairman of?) the MWA membership committee, right? Does the committee have any discretion, or is it limited to looking at defined professional credits?
Suppose a writer put a novel up as tipware (e.g. John Scalzi’s first novel, “Agent to the Stars”) and was able to proffer evidence that it was a success — tips, nominations, downloads, notable pull-quotes, a podcast version of the novel. Essentially, it’s a successful novel, just not especially monetized, and non-traditionally distributed. Could the Membership Committee grant a waiver to let the work count toward membership?
For what it’s worth, self-published/POD writers can join the MWA as affiliate members and attend the meetings, get the newsletter, be listed on the web site, network with other members, etc. I am the webmaster for MWA’s Northern California chapter and you can see that there are several self-pubbed/POD writers in the group (click on my name to see the NorCal membership roster).
Greg, to answer your question, the MWA blantantly and automatically rejects all self-published authors, no exceptions.
The by-laws state: “Active membership is open to professional writers in the crime/mystery/suspense field whose work has been published or produced in the U.S., who reside in the U.S., and who meet specific criteria set by the Board for this category. Currently, some of those criteria are: *** The work is neither self-published nor cooperatively published.”
That is in stark contrast to the ITW, which addresses self-published authors in a much differet and greatly more respectful way.
Maybe this is a little off-topic, but what does make a movie “independent?” I guess a guy like Kevin Smith started as the movie version of “self-published,” and in many ways John Sayles is still “self-published.” Are there awards their movies wouldn’t qualify for if they played in theatres?
I think J.D. makes a good point that other publishers may follow this lead if it’s profitable enough.
It will always be difficult to measure the distance between one division and another in a large, multi-national corp nd it will likely get even more difficult.
From author Laura Lippman on her blog today:
“I also feel genuinely sad that so many self-published writers feel slighted by MWA’s policies.No, it’s not about merit. It’s about professionalism. And while being paid for one’s work isn’t the only way to be professional, it’s an awfully good way to start.”
Today I made a formal request to the MWA to permit qualified, self-published authors to apply for associate membership. My email to MWA states in full as follows:
“Dear MWA:
Currently the MWA automatically excludes all self-published authors from applying for associate membership. (See Approved Publisher criteria, paragraph 7: “The publisher is not a “self-publishing” or “subsidy publishing” firm in which the author has paid all or part of the cost of publication, marketing, distribution of the work, or any other fees pursuant to an agreement between the author and publisher, cooperative publisher or book packager.”). This exclusion exists irrespective of the qualifications, success and professionalism of the author at issue. I would submit that it is time for MWA to make a philosophical change that recognizes the ability of many contemporary authors to self-publish and still maintain the high degree of standards and professionalism that have historically been employed by traditional publishers.
I am making a formal request that MWA drop its blanket exclusion of all self-published authors and instead adopt the standards which are currently being used by the International Thriller Writers (ITW), as follows:
“With particular regard to self-published books, where there is no publisher beyond the author, any determination of the author being a qualified publisher shall be on a case-by-case basis and such factors as the work itself, the breadth of its marketing, the extent of its distribution, the editorial process, its sales, the author’s personal history, reviews in recognized publications, and any other factor relevant to the particular situation may be considered in making such determination. Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.”
I request that a copy of this email be sent to each officer, director, and chapter president of MWA so that they are aware that this very important proposal has been submitted. I would also appreciate a formal response to my request.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you, Jim M. Hansen (www.jimhansenbooks.blogspot.com).”
I have not done this in an attempt to gain admission to the MWA. Frankly, I have no interest in being an MWA member and will not apply for membership even if MWA changes its membership criteria. The proposal is being made to give the MWA an opportunity to eliminate its prejudical philosophy against self-published authors which I, and many others, find so offensive.
Correction, the above email had a typo in that “associate” should have been “active.”
The email is a request that self-published authors be permitted to apply for ACTIVE (FULL) membership, not the 2nd tier membership. A corrected email was sent to the MWA.
It amazing to me how arrogant, self-serving, and tone deaf vanity press authors are. I got a big laugh out of Stacey Cochran on Sarah Weinman and Laura Lippmann’s blogs urging the MWA to create an award just for him and his self-proclaimed “ground-breaking work.”
(“How cool would it be to see a Best Independently-Published Novel Category at the Edgars? With authors like myself, JA Konrath, John Rector, Allan Guthrie, Boyd Morrison, and countless others doing ground-breaking stuff publishing independently, it just makes more sense to embrace it.” — Stacey Cochran)
Now here’s James Hansen hijacking the blogs of Lee Goldberg and Laura Lippmann and doing the same thing. The self-serving arrogance of his letter above is quite astounding to me. Hansen isn’t even an MWA member, but he demands that they take immediate action to change the rules to let in “qualified, self-published authors” (by which, of course, he means himself) into the organization. He even has the balls to ask that his self-proclaimed “very important proposal” be copied to every friggin chapter president and board member! Hilarious!
Who the hell does he think he is? Why should the MWA give a crap what he thinks about anything? And does he honestly think he’s the first self-published author to propose that MWA let self-published authors become members? I can only imagine the laughter at MWA over this “very important proposal.”
MWA does allow self-published authors in.
The authors also need to have been commercially published, but once that is accomplished the authors can publish themselves all they like!
Funny how so few authors think that’s a good idea…
“Funny how so few authors think that [self-publishing] is a good idea.”
I agree that it really is sort of fully when you stop to think about it. Most “authors” jump at a $5K, $10K or $15K advance to sell the rights to something they’ve worked on for a year. If they’re lucky they get 2 or 3 more chances, peter out at mid-list authorism, and then get soundly dumped to never be heard from again. Meanwhile, everthing was out of their control the entire time. In fact, most authors don’t even have a clue how the publishing industry works. Without someone to do it all for them, they’re dead in the water.
By contrast, some people actually believe so strongly in their work and in themselves that they wouldn’t even begin to dream of selling their rights for a measly $15K, of $35K or $50K. My books, for example, have had approximately $200,000 in retail sales in just the last 4 years. Net profits have been approximately half that.
I always shake my head with amazement when “traditionally published” members of the MWA and similar groups look down their noses on authors who have had the guts to actually take a chance on themselves rather than look desperately to some stranger for validation. In the end, at least in 95% of the cases, they sell their rights for practially nothing, make a pittance of money and then disappear forever, because they don’t have the skills or intestinal fortitude to make things happen for themselves.
So, yeah, it is funny. What’s even funnier though is the platform they build for themselves to look down on “self-published” authors.
Funniest of all, hands down, are the cyberspace trolls who have never written anything worthwhile in their lives and yet think that if they can go to some blog and peck at their keyboard and call someone “self-published” they have automatically and unambiguously pronounced their own superiority.
Funny stuff indeed.
Well that’s good money if you can get it anywhere. Most self-published and vanity published mopes don’t. As the saying goes Jim, lie down with dogs…No one has to build a platform to dis a preponderance of evidence against self-publishing. Until you get picked up by a real publisher and distributed, you aren’t really published.
“Until you get picked up by a real publisher and distributed, you aren’t really published.”
You still don’t get it and apparently never will. I do have a real publisher, I am distributed, and I am published. You might not like it, but that’s the way it is.
Jim,
You don’t have a “real publisher.” You have yourself. From what I can tell, you are the only author you publish.
You also don’t seem to have wide distribution to brick-and-mortar stores. I haven’t run a Bookscan search on your titles but, for the heck of it (and because I am procrastinating), I called a few local bookstores today and, as far as I know, there isn’t a Barnes & Noble, Borders, or major indie bookstore in Los Angeles that stocks your novels. This is a major American city…and your books aren’t here (by contrast, my books are in just about every single bookstore in the nation, whether it’s Los Angeles or Owensboro, KY). I bet I could call around in Seattle, Chicago, Washington, Boston, and a dozen other major cities outside of the state of Colorado and not find a store that stocks your book.
That said, I will grant you that there is a BIG difference between what you are doing — which I would call genuine self-publishing — and someone who goes to a vanity press. You are publishing your book…you are not going to some vanity press scammer that charges an outrageous fee to print the book and then has the gall to take a huge chunk of any sales as well. You took a huge risk.
But I think it’s absurd to argue that it was a wise risk…or that writers who sell their books to a publisher lack your skill and understanding of publishing.
You are assuming, for the sake of your argument, that authors inevitably get paid a pittance, that their careers will peter out and that they would have done much better mortgaging their house to self-publish.
The financial reasoning behind your argument, and your characterization of how publishing works, doesn’t match reality. You’re forgetting that the $5K, $15K, 25K or whatever that an author gets is an advance against royalties. If the book does well — and it has a far better chance of doing so with nationwide distribution and a major publisher behind it — you can earn substantially more money than your advance. I know many authors who have earned far more than $100,000 from their books…and whose careers did not “peter out” after two or three books…and yet have never hit the bestseller lists.
You talk about having the “guts,” “intestinal fortitude,” and “skills” to publish your own work…while only the weak and unskilled writers insist on being paid for their work.
What you haven’t talked about is what it has cost you to publish your books, warehouse them, and distribute them yourself…but I can guess it’s in the tens of thousands of dollars. Not many aspiring writers have that kind of money to invest. And even if they did, very, very, very few would ever make their money back.
You claim that you’ve made $100,000 off your self-published books. I’m skeptical of that, but I will take your word for it. Here’s what I don’t get: if the books are selling as well as you claim, surely New York has noticed. Why hasn’t Barnes & Noble capitalized on your success and “gone wide” with your books from coast-to-coast? Why haven’t Harper Collins, Random House, Simon & Schuster, etc. tripped all over themselves to offer you a lucrative book contract? Why are you virtually unknown?
Lee
Lee, I’ll admit that my books are not carried nationally yet by BN. They are however carried throughout Colorado at all BN stores with automatic restock.
They they are also held by hundreds of library systems across the country, including LA, San Francisco, and many others in California. Go to http://www.worldcat.org and do a search if you’re interested. Many library systems have 20, 30 or even more books of a single title. They are very popular and regularly checked out, even years after they were acquired.
My Kindle numbers for the first two weeks in December are:
Transaction Summary
Transactions from 12/01/2009 to 12/16/2009
Grand Total: 506.59 USD
What are your numbers?
My books have been very favorably reviewed by Library Journal, Booklist, and dozens upon dozens of other review organizations. I receive complimentary letters from readers on a very regular basis.
The printing of my first book, Night Laws, was 3300 copies. It’s sold out and went in a second printing. The printing of my second book, Shadow Laws, was 2200 copies, also sold out and in a second printing. My other books are not quite sold out yet but are rapidly approaching that stage.
Why hasn’t New York noticed? It has. I’ve been contacted several times, both for book rights and movie option rights. Believe it or not, traditional publishing is not my goal. I am, however, currently in talks for a movie option. That was not solicited. Representatives of a major studio came across my books and contacted me to sent them 3 PDFs of books that have yet to be released. I have no idea if anything will come of it but you never know.
Another thing you’re not aware of is that I have written several books under a pen name. They are doing very well–in libraries, stocked at my BN stores, etc.
Right now, as I type this, I have 11 books in the top 100 bestsellers of a very competitive bestselling category on Kindle, worldwide. They are, in fact, doing better than yours, even though yours are $3-4 cheaper.
So, if the point of your comment was to make me feel like a nobody, sorry but it didn’t work.
Now what I’d like you to do is take the same criteria you used to judge me and apply them to your MWA members published by “traditional publishers,” even including your board members and chapter presidents. I’ll bet that 90% of them will fare no better.
I’m not at the top of the mountain yet but I’m getting higher every day. Less than 4 years ago, I didn’t have a single book out yet and nobody in the world knew my name.
How far along were you, or other writers, 4 years after you began? If the point of your comment was to belittle me, sorry but it had no effect. You should, however, sit back and reflect on why you would write such a negative comment to someone. It seems to me that authors should be pulling together, not trying to tear each other apart. (Oh, wait, I forgot–in your opinion, I’m not a real author. I’m just a wannabe.)
Jim,
My comment was not intended to “belittle” you or to “make you feel like a nobody.” I asked valid questions and took issue with several of the points you made. If that strikes you as insulting, that’s a shame.
You wrote: “Right now, as I type this, I have 11 books in the top 100 bestsellers of a very competitive bestselling category on Kindle.”
It’s those kinds of comments that show your inexperience in publishing (and no, I don’t mean that as an insult, or to belittle you). The sales rankings on Amazon and/or Kindle are virtually meaningless…and change minute-by-minute. Amazon doesn’t even disclose how those ranks are determined…or how many sales it takes you to move up a notch. For example, one of my out-of-print Kindle books was the number one or number two bestselling book in the TV reference category for several days…but I’d sold less than two dozen books. Boasting that you’re on “competitive Kindle bestseller lists” says nothing and is actually counter-productive as far as establishing a professional image for yourself goes.
You wrote: “Now what I’d like you to do is take the same criteria you used to judge me and apply them to your MWA members published by “traditional publishers,” even including your board members and chapter presidents. I’ll bet that 90% of them will fare no better.”
I’m not sure what criteria are referring to. Is it sales? If so, there are many MWA members and Board members who have sold a lot more than 3300 copies of their books. Is it distribution? If so, there are many MWA members & Board memebrs whose books can be found in almost every bookstore in the United States (and many foreign countries). I honestly don’t understand the point you are trying to make. But it’s irrelevant anyway…sales and distribution is not what I was discussing. I was discussing MWA’s standards. You’ve attempted to turn it into a discussion, and referendum, on you.
I am not judging you, Jim. I think it’s great that you are apparently one of the few who has made money as a self-published novelist. I hope you keep selling thousands of copies.
The topic here is the MWA’s standards, not you as a person, or how much you earn, or what your Amazon rankings might be. Your earnings and Amazon rankings are irrelevant to this discussion.
Do I support the criteria for professional publication set by the MWA? I do.
Do your books meet those criteria? No, they don’t.
Do I think the criteria should be changed? No, I do not.
You think otherwise. In all the years you have been posting comments on this blog, you have yet to make a convincing or compelling argument for why the criteria should be changed…except that they exclude you. So we will just have to agree to disagree.
Lee
Greets,
I’m one of those “cyberspace trolls who have never written anything worthwhile in their lives.” Apparently this doesn’t give me enough credit to comment on these sort of matters, since I don’t have the qualifications to d-… wait a minute, this sounds familiar.
That point aside, I’ll make a brief additional note that I’m a studying software engineer who has an interest in writing (and debate!) and just happened to stumble across this. I’m young and not really all that wise in regards to the world, so I’m genuinely sorry that if any statements I make are uninformed, but they’re purely logical conclusions.
That aside, there are two central things I’d like to point out as a “cyberspace troll” who isn’t so entangled in the industry being discussed here:
Professional industry standards exist everywhere. Yes, everyone’s said it, but apparently the logic here is being ignored. You could go on to say: “Oh, I don’t *really* care about it, that organization can just flounder,” but if so, why the persistence on the matter? Obviously there’s some degree of concern, Jim, if you’re so persistent to debate and write letters and make a fuss, which is perfectly valid.
So are the restrictions on membership that ridiculous? If I’m reading things properly, not at all. The complaints directed towards this by self-published authors in blogs (and comments, for that matter) all show a degree of ignorance that sort of astounds me. Are you aware of how difficult it is to get into organizations of a similar nature in other industries?
Of course, one might say, as you have, that they’re not “forward-thinking.” This argument calls for a moderation, a balance between professional and performative merits. Yet, the professional merits act as a filter for the performative merits, or perhaps I misunderstand MWA as an organization. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the MWA is doing this in an attempt to make a statement pertaining to the industry, one to protect upcoming novelists.
Are they really protecting them? I don’t know, I’m not savvy enough about publication to say. No doubt other people can argue about that point, but I daresay an organization of MWA’s nature wouldn’t just make flippant decisions.
That brings me to the second humble point here, one that confuses me greatly. Jim, as such a successful novelist not in need of a publisher, who doesn’t need to “look desperately to some stranger for validation,” why the turnabout here? You’re clearly, according to your figures (terribly unreliable things on the internet, but let’s trust you on the matter), not in need of membership. Is it a personal goal? Is it a financial boost? Perhaps were I more knowledgeable in matters pertaining to such guilds I would be able to say, and perhaps for that reason my points come across as silly or uninformed, but I can’t really think of any other reason to put substantial effort into the matter.
Carrying on, I will state some simple facts: you’re coming across as rather self-important, invalidating your arguments in the logical sense before they need even be considered. You’ve turned honest comments into an ad hominem. Mr. Goldberg was not the one who brought numbers or supposed merits (again, ambiguous buggers on the ‘net) into play. When he intelligently went to check that they were honest, you’ve taken it as a character attack.
It’s a bit of a weasel tactic, and usually something that you do when there’s no real meat to your argument.
Not wanting to damage your sense of security, however, I will admit there’s possible merit to your claims. Of course, the best way to prove these merits would be through constructive efforts showing that self-published authors as a whole are capable of meeting the same standards as commercial authors, which you are decidedly not doing. Instead you are determined to show that you are the special one and that they should open the doors because you’re just that great.
This would be the prime time to turn around and claim that, “Oh, no, I’m trying to represent self-published authors as a whole.” Of course, this brings additional complications. As a man well-versed in literary style you would have made a more tangible effort to convey this in your comments; instead, I see one thing emerging, and that is the central focus is on… you.
Finally, the snappy attitude makes me recall some old cliché about bees and honey. As an author I imagine you know it.
Cheers,
ALS
Jim,
I’m admittedly lousy at math, but I don’t see how, based on the numbers you provided, you could have made $100,000 profit off of your books.
You say that you’ve sold 3300 copies of “Night Laws” @ $13.95 each, for retail sales of about $46,000. Bookstores typically get a 40-45% discount, don’t they? So you brought in about $28,000. Out of that, you have to subtract the cost of publishing, shipping, storage, returns, hurt items, taxes, accounting, etc. on the books. I’m guessing that leaves you with $15-18,000.
You claim that your second book has sold 2200 copies @ $13.95 each, bringing in $30,690, which after the bookseller discount, would leave about $17,000. After costs, what do you have left in your pocket? I speculate $7-10,000.
You say your seven other “Laws” books haven’t sold out their initial printings yet, which means you are warehousing the unsold books, facing potential returns, and haven’t recouped the investment on those titles.
I don’t see how that could possibly add up to $100,000 in profits. But like I said, I am a math moron. Where did I screw up or what did I miss?
Lee