I posted this on a linked-in forum in reply to a guy saying (as so many do, unchallenged) that "examples of self-published authors moving into mainstream are rare".

And it's one of those half-truths that has a statistical/logical flaw if generalized to "self-publishing hurts your chances at mainstream publication".
Namely that ANY author moving into mainstream publication is rare.

So the question would be, "Are previously self-published authors less likely to be accepted by mainstream publishers than writers with no background at all?"

I'm not sure that stat could be generated, actually, but I'm thinking that self-pubbed authors beat the par of submission/acceptance ratio to publishers.
It's worth thinking about in discussions of this nature.

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. This is a matter of logic or statistics, as applied to the assumption that self-publishing doesn't help with acceptance.

The only way to know for sure, of course, would be to take the number of self-publishers who cross over to mainstream and compare it to the control group of all writers that submit to publishers and see if the acceptance rate is higher of lower.

Like I said, that's not something likely to be statistically established. But I think it's quite likely that self-publshers do better than non-published writers at getting the nod.

What the guy said about rarity of "cross-overs" is, as I said, true so far as it goes. But within the insinuation, it has no validity. Because getting published for ALL writers is rare.

You don't know if it's a delusion or not. That's the point I'm making, and you are missing.

It's very possible that self-publishing does, in fact give you a better shot at acceptance than not doing it. Stands to reason actually... however rare a "cross over" might be, it's a statistical advance over the "control group" of all writers.

Another way to look at it: if you can sell 60.000 copies of your SP book, you're pretty sure to get a contract somewhere. If you don't publish it, that's not going to happen. This is not a matter of cause and effect, it's a matter of examing the odds.

Furthermore, the self-publisher has another benefit the writer who keeps submitting doesn't have: his books are being read. He is gaining readership. Also, learning a thing or two about publishing, editing, a lot of things you don't learn in writing class.

This is much more consistent with current models of publishing than models that are falling away. Look into Cory Doctorow's comments on this.

But what I am saying here is a "debunk of the debunk" and it rests on statistical logic.
Simple, really, as saying, "You can't discount self-publishing as a road to publication on the grounds of rarity of success because the overall pattern of writing shows a success rate as rare or more so."

I was going to make comment, but; the world is changing so fast, my comment fell out of date.

Domenic

LOL
(or is that still what people say?)

A self-published author selling 60,000 copies? On what planet? And at what cost and effort?

What, exactly, is a self-published author going to learn about editing and publishing during this process that will help him as an author? They're three entirely different jobs. Why learn all this if the goal is to be an author?

As for a self-published book being "read" while waiting for a commercial home -so what. What does that "reading" really amount to? About the same as views of a free YouTube vid. Nothing.

Lin, I've got contracts with three commercial pubs. Here's my latest royalty check for my trade non-fic

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j320/DrawMeAPicture/check.jpg

I didn't get it based on eyeballs looking for free reading on websites, and I didn't get it based on any effort of my own besides writing the book. That's why there are publishers and editors -to take what I give them and polish/sell it. The thing is, I have to give them something worth polishing and selling. Most folks don't. That's why commercial publication is rare.

I have sold way over 100,00 copies of a self-publshed book. On this very planet. Bill Branon sold 60.000 himself and got a contract with a major publisher.

You aren't talking about my post anymore, LC. Because, actually you didn't get it. It's about statistics and logic, not your credtentials.

Glad you're getting checis. Many do. But in point of fact, self-publishing shaves the odds for getting a book accepted by a publisher. Your own experience is only one number, doesn't affect that. Talk to somebody who's into logic or stats or freakonomics or something. They can probably explain this to you really quickly.

Or, just keep turning this into one more of a jillion "self-publishing is wonderful/evil" rant a thons.


What I said here is actually pretty hard to refute: the fact that few self-publishers get contracts is not a reason against self-publishing. Because very few non-self-publishers get contracts, either.

Google is your friend, Lin.

www.stackpolebooks.com

BTW, if sp is such a great vehicle for commercial publication, why hasn't it worked for you, yet? Why are you repeating shizniat from people with agendas when it hasn't worked for you?

I was just going to recommend it to you. Or eBay. A used book in elementary logic. It's a powerful tool for writers and people in all walks of life.