When I began creating a fantasy world, called Elineer, that would serve as the basis of a large range of media, I wanted to create a trilogy or series of books of a very important point in time of the history of that world, but shape it so that there can be content before and after that specific period. As I did more research, the thought of how I would get my novel published came up almost immediately. How would I get this fantastic piece of work (at least, in my mind it is) to the general public?
As far as I can see, there are two options. The first option is to go through the traditional way of submitting to a publishing house, and cross your fingers that it will work. The second option is to do it all yourself, and that falls within the realm of self-publishing.
As someone who has never published anything before, just written stories for free (and two submitted for contest purposes, but I am getting there), I had a series of nerve-wracking brainstorming sessions about the pros and cons of self-publishing versus traditional publishing, and it actually made me worry. It shouldn’t have, but it did. Like anyone who lacks experience when starting out in any field or art, you tend to be quickly overwhelmed by concepts that can take a while to understand, and boy, did I worry.
Eventually, I realized that this decision would be made possibly many years down the road, and all this mental toxic cloud bubble did was dragging me away from any form of creative writing. Besides, you’d have to be a one-shot wonder to instantly climb the ranks in such a way—that is, not many people make it on a first attempt. Many people often fail their driving test on a first attempt.
However, as I have nearly finished with the first novel into the Elineer universe, I have returned to that question once more: do I publish traditionally, or do I self-publish?
Traditional Publishing
I love the fact that many books—the lesser and the more well-known—have gone through some publishing house for review and had the pleasure of being sat on a bookshelf in a book store, waiting to be read by the next keen reader. Many of these publishers handle nearly everything for you: they front the costs of printing the books, they may do some marketing for you, and they pay you royalties for every copy sold. Yes, I am watering it down quite a bit, but a lengthy explanation is not the purpose (this time). In many cases, the old fashioned way is a great time-saver, and they allow you to continue on with life, or write even more.
The downside is that they often are looking for high quality work, can be quite specific with genre, and have other restrictions in place. Furthermore, because many shops receive several hundred or even thousands of manuscripts to review, yours may be reviewed sometime into the next year–an estimated six months minimum of potential waiting that must seem like an eternity, and only then do you get the notice of rejection. Some even require experience, meaning you must have something out there already.
However, a healthy relationship between the author and the publisher could mean better sales and more visibility, and such a relationship can reap huge rewards down the road. A very strong argument for traditional publishing.
Self-Publishing
I believe it’s as old as the early nineties when the idea formed, but self-publishing allows you full, one-hundred percent control over all aspects of the book. Not only do you get to chose when and how, but you get the total cost of the sell value of the item in question, and you get them right away. No royalties or quarterly payments like how many publishers operate. It means I could technically publish right now and start making sales.
However, there are potentially huge downsides to self-publishing. Yes, you have full control over every aspect of the book from concept to page, but you have to pay for all those aspects, whereas publishers will handle all of that for you. Not only can it cost a fortune (depending on what you are doing), but you have to promote your work all by yourself, unless you employ a marketing firm, which can cost an absolute fortune. So, by taking the self-publishing route, you may have to make many sacrifices just to get any exposure whatsoever, whereas publishers can help you through all that mess—that is, if they give you a contract.
What Should I Do?
This debate continues with me forevermore. I really do like the option of having full control over what goes into my book, including the art cover, the inside jacket bit, etc. I also like the idea that I can print on demand when I need to. However, as someone who is constantly busy with a job and real life in general, I don’t know if I could make the jump into self-publishing and keep going with real life. I would have to dedicate a lot of my time and effort. I do business as Patrick Rivers (as that is a pen name), so I could factor in business costs and needs as being a sole proprietor, which, legally, may help mitigate any hard expenses. Fair enough.
But I can definitely see the potential for the traditional publisher. Another fantastic reason for choosing a traditional publisher, especially a well-known one, is that if you get accepted and they publish your book under one of their well-known plates, that means your book and name sits among those well-known published books, which means you become potentially well-known as time goes on. Furthermore, they can help you achieve other goals that you may not be able to achieve yourself. That is a very big sell. But then again, everything would have to be top notch, be the right publisher, be the right label and fit the right criteria; and when you’ve experienced all those miracles, there’s still the matter of submitting the manuscript via mail or electronically, and then wait. Wait until your hair turns white, and bags form under your eyes. That is what frightens me whenever I debate this argument with myself.
So, what route should I go? I think it might be an idea to explore the world of self-publishing first—not with a big novel, but something smaller, possibly a novella of sorts. Experience helps in the end, and from there, you can gauge and judge how well you might fare with larger projects. If I think I could make it that way, then there is a good chance I may move forward with this route. On the other hand, if things do not work well (such as finding the process too stressful or time-consuming that it requires days off of work, which means less money to continue living), then I would probably prepare myself for the traditional route.
In the end, experience is what matters, especially failure. We learn from our mistakes, we do better than the last time. They often say that many of the better drivers on the road are the ones who pass their exam the second time around. To use another useless analogy, the solution I have in mind is much like using chemicals to treat fabric or clean something, like those cans that say “test in an inconspicuous area first” so you don’t ruin your precious leather jacket. Test the waters out with a simple project; if it fails, go back to the drawing board and try something else.
Just be careful, however; your credibility plays into this. 🙁