Are publishers necessary?

For older writers, like me, the most important issues raised by the revolution revolve around our literary backlogs. Most writers discover, as their careers progress, that their older works can add real spendable money to their incomes if they can keep them in print. The technological revolution offers us new ways to manage our backlogs — and new issues to ponder. One of the biggest issues is the value of a publisher.

In the past, publishers controlled the fate of a writer’s backlog. Most major publishers would only keep a book in print if the potential sales justified a print run of several thousand copies.

Publishers? Who needs 'em?

Technology has changed that. E-books completely eliminate the expense of printing, binding, and warehousing. Another revolutionary technology, print on demand, alters the economy of physical books by eliminating the need for big print runs; print-on-demand machines produce fully bound books one at a time, as the orders come in. Contemporary writers can take control of their backlog and publish it themselves, without scraping up the money for a standard print run.

But should they? Is self-publishing the best way to exploit your backlog? Is there any advantage in working with a publisher?

I’ve now tried it both ways. Three years ago, I published e-book editions of nine of my science fiction stories through the self-publishing programs Amazon and Barnes and Noble offer writers. In July of last year, I opted to work with a small specialty publisher, Fantastic Press, and they have now published a collection of my stories under the title Lovers & Fighters, Starships & Dragons.

The self-publishing programs are do-it-yourself projects. I upload a file to the Amazon or B&N website, a program converts my file into an e-book format, and the book goes on sale. Royalty rates range from 35 to 70 percent, depending on the price of the book. Royalties automatically appear in my bank account several times a year.

My Fantastic Press collection brings in smaller amounts per copy. For the physical, print-on-demand version of the book, I receive the standard 10 percent royalty. The e-book arrangements are a little more complicated, but I should receive about 20 to 25 percent of the e-book price.

Fantastic Press is a good example of the new types of publishers who are taking advantage of the new technology. You won’t find its books in the bookstores. It’s strictly a print-on-demand and e-book operation. I could have self-published my book in both formats and made more money per copy. So why did I decide to work with a publisher?

Pros and cons

For one thing, the self-publishing process isn’t quite as simple as the Amazon and B&N websites make it sound. I spent a lot of time debugging my uploads — a tedious process that involves uploading, waiting for the converter to transform my file into an e-book, editing my word processor file when I locate bugs in the e-book version, and uploading again to see if I’ve corrected the bug. I also had to design e-book “covers” — the images that accompany your listing on the bookseller’s website and create that all-important first impression.

When I described the process to my friend Michael Swanwick, Philadelphia’s leading science fiction writer, he said “That’s what I have a publisher for.”

There are ways to avoid this hassle. But the alternatives all come with dollar signs attached. There is a traditional division of labor between writers and publishers. Writers produce words, while publishers provide the capital and take care of all the processes that turn texts into sellable commodities. The division of risk is just as important. Writers risk their time; publishers risk their money.

My initial attempts at self-publishing brought in some cash and still do. But I didn’t repeat them. As time passed, I realized I was putting off uploading more titles. The acquisitions editor for Fantastic Press had approached me about a collection before I started experimenting with self-publishing. When he floated the idea again last year, I remembered one of the great adages of the publishing business: 25 percent of something is better than 70 percent of nothing.

The publisher, Ian Strock, has done some things I wouldn’t have, in addition to preparing satisfactory computer files. He purchased a couple of hundred copies of the book, for example, and distributed review copies. The reviews have been so glowing that my satisfaction with the psychological income from the project almost upstages my interest in the sales figures.

Ian also attends most of the science fiction conventions held on the East Coast and sets up booths in the dealer’s rooms that are a standard feature of SF cons. My book is on display, in effect, in bookstores located in prime locations. He can even pump an e-book into your e-reader on the spot.

Write on!

I’m a writer. When I’m working, I want to be writing, not debugging files. When I’m not working, I do things that help me be a better writer, like reading and hanging around with different types of people. I’m willing to invest my time, but I turn into Scrooge McDuck when you ask me to invest my money in my own work.

Other writers have different attitudes. I know writers who have hired people to prepare their backlogs for e-publication and found the financial return justified the investment. Some writers have set up their own publishing imprints and taken complete control of their careers. Your decision depends on your temperament, your tolerance for risk, and your confidence in the appeal of your backlog.

A few years ago, all the writers I know agreed publishing was going to be very different in ten years. We’re now in the midst of that upheaval. New types of publishers are emerging. Older publishers are adapting. Writers are learning that self-publishing can work under the right circumstances. But I think my original conclusion is still valid. When the dust settles, most of the landscape will be dominated by the familiar figures of the writer, the editor, and the publisher, harnessed in the traditional shaky, permanently conflicted partnership.