Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Master Balloon Entertainer Watch | Christian Singing Group at a State… »

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Books Self-Publishing Doesn't Have to Suck

Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Slog tipper Tracy wanted you to see this: It's a guide titled "25 Things You Should Know About Self-Publishing."

Ordinarily, I wouldn't encourage self-publishers, because I get all kinds of crappy self-published books in the mail every day (seriously, a book is an invisible dance between a writer and an editor, and if you don't have a real editor—not a beta reader, an editor—your book is not a real book yet). But this list acknowledges the problems with self-publishing and it could provide that one-tenth-of-one-percent of self-publishers whose books are actually ready to be read by human beings with some important guidance. Some tips include:

Most Self-Published Books Suck a Bucket of Dicks

Your Book Is a Boat Which Must Ride Upon Sewage

Please Don't Let Your Cover Look Like a Three-Fingered Smear of Dog-Shit

Editors Are Your Bestest Friends

It's a list that's full of exactly the kind of information that all self-publishers need to hear and most will probably ignore.

FacebookShare

Comments (4) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Those who live in houses made of RPG pub credits shouldn't cast stones.

Posted by mint chocolate chip on September 1, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Gotta love it when writers - even bad writers, such as Paul* - give the worst, most condescending advice to those who haven't had the level of luck/personal connections/luck/alignment of stars/luck that a published** writer has been fortunate enough to have had.

Paul, you can go ahead and choke on a bucket of dicks. I've worked with real*** editors off and on for a number of years. Most of them didn't know their asses from the plot-holes they inadvertently dug into otherwise OK drafts. Get your head straight. Anyone who writes is a writer, and saying that a book without an editor isn't a real book is like saying an elephant without an ivory dealer isn't a real elephant.

*Yes, I'm trolling. Who gives a fuck?
**The stars here are meant to imply derision.
***As are these.

Posted by Writers write, editors correct spelling on September 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM

" Anyone who writes is a writer"

In the sense that a three year old with some watercolors is a painter sure.

Posted by giffy on September 1, 2011 at 9:10 AM

I remain torn.

Yes, a vast majority of self-published books are terrible. No argument there.

But I'm not entirely convinced that editors are the only answer. To my knowledge, Shakespeare didn't have an editor. Did Mark Twain? The role of the editor is a relatively modern notion, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I had the impression that most writers used to succeed (or not) based almost solely on their own writing and story-telling ability.

So, yes, an editor may be one source of help for some writers. But it may constrain other writers. A good editor might help a writer clarify their writing, but a bad editor may hurt a writer by dumbing down an engaging idea in a misguided attempt to make it more palatable to a wider audience. Honing their writing skills and learning to be more objective critics of their own writing may be just as helpful as an editor.

Posted by Reverse Polarity on September 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM