iUniverse CEO Speaks

I received the email below from Susan Driscoll, CEO of iUniverse.   It is presented here unedited. She has also kindly offered to let me interview her for a Q&A to be posted here in the future. If you have any questions you would like me to ask her (in addition to whatever occurs to me), please share them in the "Comments" to this post. Thanks!

Dear Lee,

I've been reading your recent postings regarding iUniverse. Having lived on both sides of the publishing world-from my experience in traditional publishing and now as CEO of a self-publishing service provider-I have a unique perspective on the publishing business.

One very important correction to your recent posting (and I know that others have pointed this out): the number of iUniverse Star titles is 83 but the number of titles that have sold over 500 copies is many thousands. To qualify for the iUniverse Star program, authors must have sold 500 copies of their book, at least 50% of those through retail channels. If authors are committed to marketing their books and feel that the Star Program will help them enhance those marketing plans and increase book sales, they then apply. When considering titles, we ask the same key questions that every editor and traditional publisher asks. Is it good? Will it sell? But beyond that we only select the titles that we feel will benefit from the advantages of being in the program. You can see that there are many criteria-promising levels of retail sales, the author application and commitment, and careful consideration by the Star Review Board. That means that there are far fewer books  that reach Star than that sell 500 copies.

The reality of ALL publishing today is that authors are expected to be aggressively involved in marketing. Traditional publishers will rarely pick up a non-fiction author who doesn't have a "platform," and new fiction titles have to be exceptional to even be considered. By helping authors to self-publish their books, iUniverse gives them a way to begin building a platform and honing their writing skills. The majority of authors soon decide that they don't want to play the marketing game and that's fine--they still have the enormous satisfaction of seeing their book in print. Those authors won't likely ever get a traditional book contract nor will many care. It might sound corny, but there are few accomplishments as great as writing a book and seeing it published.

iUniverse provides a fully democratic alternative. Although some books are simply better than others, all authors have an equal chance to succeed. And even if they don't make it in the big time, I think every author deserves the chance to see a work in print.

Now, about quality. There's no question that democracy isn't perfect. Although there are many books published with the iUniverse imprint that don't meet industry standards, there are many more good ones. It's important to differentiate them. In  fact, a disservice is done to the host of professional quality books we publish  by sending the message that all iUniverse books are poor quality.

I'm well aware of the argument that writers should keep working at their craft until they're good enough to land a book contract with a traditional publishing house but the reality is that most writers will never get that far. I also fully agree that writers should keep working on their books until they are the best they can be. So why not use a POD version of the book to garner constructive criticism in order to become a better writer? That's one reason why we place such a huge emphasis on the importance of editorial quality.

iUniverse is the only services provider with a full-time editorial director and that offers a complete range of professional editorial services. We start with an editorial evaluation that assesses a manuscript, but we don't stop  there. We don't just tell authors what needs work in their books; we provide writers with the tools and services to help them improve their manuscripts with editorial services. These range from copyediting all the way to ghostwriting; our prices are based on industry standards or less; and, we use the same editorial service providers that are used by traditional publishers. The result is higher quality books that iUniverse recognizes through Editor's Choice, Reader's Choice, and ultimately Star.   

With the realities of publishing today and the increasing difficulties in finding an agent and landing a contract from a traditional publisher, should talented writers sit with unpublished manuscripts and a pile of rejection letters? I think there's a better way. With smaller advances and non-existent marketing budgets from mainstream publishers, and a host of outlets for sales outside the brick-and-mortar stores, authors need to take more control of the publishing process.

iUniverse provides both a stepping stone to traditional publishing for those authors who are absolutely committed to marketing but need a way to prove themselves, and an affordable, speedy, professional way for authors who simply want to see their book published. We're also ideal for back in print titles, and for authors who are writing for a specialized or niche audience. Friends and family books are indeed a niche, but there are many other niche markets and the Web is a perfect vehicle for authors to reach their target audience.

We're certainly not Random House and we don't pretend to be. Having said that, we know quite well what it takes to get noticed by traditional publishers: a quality book with a market-savvy author and an already built-in market. Authors who don't fit that profile need to figure out a different way to achieve their publishing dreams and need an alternative pathway to success. 

iUniverse provides one such alternative.

Susan Driscoll

President and CEO
iUniverse
www.iuniverse.com

Comments

[Mark A. York]

An iUniverse book isn't really published. That's the bug in the corn silo. I'd be interested in knowing how many of those 500 were sold to the author in the "many" cases?

[Brian Hogg]

It's interesting that she took the time to write you a letter, and nice that she didn't get angry or resort to name-calling, or anything of that sort, but I find her view of self-publishing to be quite disconcerting. She certainly sounds like she views self-publishing as a way to facilitate the learning process; she's got the cart miles before the horse, there.

[Dave Zeltserman]

Susan,

I'd like to thank you for responding to Lee's postings. My own experience - I had a couple of crime novels that were close with several publishers, but kept getting killed in committee. After gathering dust for several years I decided to sacrifice one of them to iUniverse with the hope of getting enough positive reviews to get the other book sold (ineffect, use it as a resume). I did have success with this and ended up both selling the Italian rights of my self-published book to a mainstream Italian publisher and having the book picked up by a small US publisher. Here are some of my observations:

1) To be fair, iUniverse got my book reviewed by PublishersWeekly, something that hasn't happened with my current publisher.

2) I was able to get over 20 reviews from web review sites, but none from any major papers. They just won't under any circumstance deadeal with self-published books. In one case I had a reviewer at the Rocky Mountain News like the book, write a good review, schedule it, and have it killed at the last minute by her editor when she found out it was a self-published book.

3) Mystery bookstores won't deal with self-published books because of the no return policy. Neither will small bookstores or chains.

4) Overall, I'd strongly recommend to any serious writer to not go this route even though it ended up working out for me. Better to just wait and try small publishers if you can't get into large houses. You also screw yourself up with awards self-publishing your book.

5) iUniverse dealt with me fairly, I just wish I hadn't initially gone down that path.

a) I do have a couple of questions - first hundred of books selling 500+ sounds high. I can believe nonfiction books, but how many fiction books sold 500+ (excluding author bought copies)?

b) Is there anyway to get the iUniverse versions of my book off amazon and bn.com? The deal was cancelled over a year ago and the books are still up there, causing confusion for people trying to buy the published version.

One final observation, I did talk to someone at iUniverse a couple of years ago, and the numbers of fiction books they publish that he thought were deserving to be published was around 100, with a dozen that he thought could do well. Those numbers to me sound more reasonable.

[Peter L. Winkler]

" By helping authors to self-publish their books, iUniverse gives them a way to begin building a platform and honing their writing skills. The majority of authors soon decide that they don't want to play the marketing game and that's fine--they still have the enormous satisfaction of seeing their book in print. Those authors won't likely ever get a traditional book contract nor will many care. It might sound corny, but there are few accomplishments as great as writing a book and seeing it published."

The only thing missing is Red Skelton's sign-off from his show, "And may God bless." Sounds indistinguishable from the Publish America oompah band. Given that the set-up fees at iUniverse have become considerable, I'd rather use PA or something like Lulu.com if I was going to self-publish. Why do let your blog be used as a conduit for this dog puke? iUniverse should have just taken out an ad.

[Mark A. York]

The fees charged make anything she says tainted. $99 way back when and close to $500 now. Fairly? They took your money with a smile I'm sure. Peter's right; it's PA cheerleading, which is taking on new lows with a new Willem Meiners book. Dave you can talk to BN and they'll remove it.

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

I found the letter informative and interesting, and I thank you for posting it, Lee. Ms. Driscoll pointed out a few things that I think bear repeating, at least from my own experience.

1. Not every book has to be a massive commercial success to be worthy of publication. Sales, quite frankly, aren't the whole story of publishing or of writing. Many small presses are happy with a few hundred sales of their titles, because they recognize that their books are often oriented toward a small niche audience. Self-published books are usually the same way, and that's perfectly okay.

To publish, after all, simply means to present something to the public.

2. Not all self-published books are bad. Many are, of course, but self-publishing does not in and of itself make a book bad any more than traditional publishing guarantees quality. It depends on each author and each editor; the problem with self-publishing is that these two are often one and the same, and not many people are good at both. I constantly caution would-be self-publishers about this.

3. Ms. Driscoll touched on another important point: self-publishing, because it requires that the author also learn to edit and proofread, is an excellent way for authors to improve their writing skills, should they choose to see it as a learning experience. I've spent far more money on writing conferences in my life than I have on self-publishing, but the single most useful learning experience I've ever had with writing was in preparing my book for actual publication myself. The conferences talked at me and occasionally to me, which was of limited value after a point. Actually doing something is better than just being told how to do it, and I'm a far better writer for having self-published, as well as a far better editor when dealing with the work of others.

So to Ms. Driscoll and iUniverse, I say: Thank you. My return on my investment in self-publishing through your company has been huge, and in ways far beyond what I originally expected.

[Mary Root]

Since the word "published" seems to have the meaning of "any printed work," we need another word for "work where someone other than the author is taking the financial risk of publishing it."

I took a course this semester where one of the texts was an iUniverse book which the professor had created as a group term project with his students in a seminar the previous year. It was about the same price as a photocopied course pack, but far more attractive and easy to read - good work iUniverse! Because it is an actual book, I can keep it on my reference shelf from now on. This was a great use of the iUniverse system. I showed it to another professor, and he was thinking of doing the same.

This sort of captive audience book is one reason splitting up the fiction and non-fiction books would be helpful, as well as showing fiction writers where the real market for self-published books is.

[Mark A. York]

Karen you mask the fact that your expectations are low to none, thus you are easily pleased: made for vanity publishing. Your long answers attest to a divining the positive from a failed operation. I'd be interested in what you do to actually get a book published. let's here of the positive from that for a change.

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

Actually, my long answers stem from the fact that I am naturally wordy, a reflection of my love for the English language, and from a desire to explore this issue as fully as I can, since I see the situation of self-publishing as a complex one that deserves more than the casual brush-off and simple, absolute statements that its detractors often seem to prefer.

I agree that my self-publishing expectations, from a commercial sense, are not high, but I fail to see why this should be a problem. My self-published work is written for a fairly narrow niche audience (although one that is slowly proving to be broader than I anticipated). Contrary to the assertion that only family and friends buy self-published books, my book is not one I have shown to my family and the only friends who have copies are those I have given copies to. The people who have bought my book are people who have wanted to read it.

From a literary perspective, on the other hand, my expectations are quite high. If my work doesn't meet my own rather stringent standards for quality, it doesn't get submitted, whether to iUniverse or an agent or a magazine. For my self-published novels, I have a reader who is decidedly outside my target niche and who expresses himself quite forcefully if he finds anything he doesn't like. This helps ensure that the story works on its own merits, not simply because of its genre or setting. The editing and proofreading I do as a self-publisher is at least as thorough, and very probably more so, as that done by a traditional publisher, since I have the advantage of having only one book at a time on my desk and no deadline breathing down my neck. As a result, even a short novel can take me more than a year to produce.

Other positives? Apart from how it has improved my skills as an editor, self-publishing has taught me to appreciate the business of publishing in way I never had before. It's taught me about many of the constraints that full time editors and agents work under and the difficulties they face. In fact I've learned more about the business of publishing by doing it myself than I ever did from attending (and paying for) writer's conferences, fun though they were.

In sum, I am easily pleased by modest sales because I researched my market before I ever published my book, and I knew that its sales would probably be modest. I am not so easily pleased by poor writing, because I am something of a perfectionist and literary snob. My skills as a writer and editor have sharpened because I self-published, since as a self-publisher I lack the safety net of having someone else edit for me. So I must confess that I am uncertain how my experience could be interpreted as a "failed operation."

[Mark A. York]

Because the bar is low and a real publisher didn't accept the work. Sounds like there are more than one and little effort to actually publish a book. It's your business but when do the training wheels come off?

[bette]

A book critic wrote here: "The problem with self-publishing is that the resulting product will have no credibility and no exposure -- and very little chance of ever obtaining either. Everyone will know that the only way you were able to get your book published was to pay someone to do it, and they will judge your work accordingly. (In that sense, I think it’s even worse than having no book at all.)"

How do you answer that, Ms. Driscoll?

[Rick]

"Everyone will know that the only way you were able to get your book published was to pay someone to do it, and they will judge your work accordingly."

How many readers care who the publisher is? I know I don't and I don't think many readers do. The only people who seem care are other writers. I look at the quality of the writing and judge accordingly, not based on how the book was published. I know you asked the question to Ms. Driscoll, but there's my two cents.

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

I can't answer for Ms. Driscoll, but in my own observations about the subject, I have noted that the critics of self-publishing seem to fall mostly into three categories: critics (who understandably don't want to wade through large numbers of bad self-published books to find the smaller number of good ones), writers (who seem to be more bothered by a percieved loss of status surrounding the term "published writer" than they are about the sudden explosion of poor books out there, since they don't generally read self-published books anyway), and readers who associate closely with writers and who want to assign them high status. This isn't universal, of course (a lot of critics, writers and readers have little interest in the debate), but it is interesting nonetheless.

For the most part (and here I refer you to the interviews with agents and editors over at POD-dy Mouth), those in the publishing industry don't seem to care one way or another about whether a book has been self-published before they see it. As professionals, they're too busy doing their jobs to get involved in debates about where books came from. And a lot of readers seem not to care about the author of a book but rather about the book itself, and so don't really seem to care where it came from either.

It's as I've been saying: the problem with self-publishing is that too many people go into it with the wrong expectations, not having the skills to do it well, and these people are often disappointed by their experience (some then become the most vocal opponents of the practice). But self-publishing really isn't competition with traditional publishing; it has its purpose and place, and it can be tremendously rewarding in its own way, but if what you want is fame and fortune out of your writing, you're much better off doing the traditional thing of plying agents and editors and working to make your writing what large numbers of people want to pay for.

[bette]

You left out booksellers -- they want nothing to do with self-published titles, either. And you left out the media, who aren't interested in promoting self-published titles because they know they are crap. And you also left out the public, who aren't buying self-published titles, either. The biggest selling iUniverse title still doesn't come close to selling as many copies as an average mid-list book. Harley Jane Kozak has sold 70,000 copies of her new booki and she's not even close to being a bestselling author and in fact her publisher is on the fence about renewing her contract. The only people who find self publishing rewarding are the people at iUniverse and Xlibris and American Book Company who are cashing your checks.

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

Here we go again...

Booksellers (and by this I mean bookstores, not the online folks such as Amazon) do not generally stock self-published books because they cannot be returned, and because their shelf-space is limited. (How long do most books sit on the shelf if they aren't selling?) As a result the business risk of stocking self-published books is greater than traditional books. Booksellers, like publishers or any other business, have to make a profit to survive, and self-published books rarely sell enough copies to make a profit. Yet I know of no bookseller who makes the kinds of blanket statements like "all self-published titles are crap." They haven't read every self-published book ever produced and so they hopefully know better than to talk like that.

As to the media, I believe I covered that under "critics." As I said, they are simply too busy to go through every available title, or even the large number of titles that are submitted to them. Some critics are, well, naturally critical, and they occassionally make silly blanket statements that they clearly can't support, like, "all of X are bad." (X in this case can be self-published books, science fiction books, romance books, mystery books, books in French, or whatever.) Most of us know they are overgeneralizing when they do this, and when they do it too much, we stop listening to them.

And media outlets are perfectly happy to accept paid advertising for self-published books, just as they are for traditionally published books, so far as I know. They're interested in making money, not practicing censorship.

As to the public, they buy what they're interested in, and plenty of traditionally published books fail too, for all sorts of reasons. Publishing anything to make a profit is a business decision, and no one can predict with absolute certainty which products will succeed and which ones will fail. Self-publishing for a profit represents the most extreme end of the risk scale, and very few self-published books are commercially successful. But it's also true that the reasons to self-publish may not include making money, or having one's work be popular outside a certain niche. Every prospective self-publisher needs to go into it with their eyes open to the facts, not the hyperbole.

This is all pretty obvious stuff, and yet I'm continually amazed at how often I have to repeat it. Publishing is highly competitive and difficult, and many quality books are not accepted by traditonal publishers; most any editor will tell you that they have had to reject excellent manuscripts for reasons unrelated to quality. Should these books waste away on someone's hard drive or desk drawer simply because someone other than the author can't stomach the idea of self-publishing?

[David Montgomery]

Self-publishing or vanity publishing is a waste of time and money in virtually all cases. The only reason to do it is so that you can have a typeset and bound copy of your book, either to give away to your friends or display on your shelves. (Of course you can try selling them to people, either via the internet or door-to-door, but chances are a million to one that anyone will want to buy a copy.)

Once it’s all said and done, you will not be the author of a published book. You will be the author of a book that you paid to have printed up. There’s a difference.

Self-publishing is not a way to make money, break-in to publishing, get reviewed, win friends or influence people. Yes, there are a few (very, very few) exceptions. But guess what? Those exceptions aren’t you (whoever “you” might be).

John Grisham would have been a successful writer even if he’d persisted until A Time to Kill was picked-up by a traditional publisher, rather than printing up a thousand copies himself. He is not a self-publishing success. He’s a success who happened to self-publish a book that made him no money, before he jumped at the chance to go with a real publisher.

As long as people know what they're getting in to, I have no problem with these companies. I do tend to look askance at the industry, though, when they take advantage of naive and/or gullible people.

[Mark A. York]

John Grisham never self-published a book. He had a small NY publisher that was and is no way a vanity press. Please stop this myth.

No matter how hard Karen apologizes for vanity presses nothing about them changes. None of it is good.

[David Montgomery]

John Grisham never self-published a book. He had a small NY publisher that was and is no way a vanity press. Please stop this myth.

Interesting, Mark. What's your source?

[Mark A. York]

My source is his publisher. I can't recall the name at the moment, but this is an often repeated urban legend. It starts with a W I believe, and they're an upstate NY small publisher. He did take some author copies and peddle them out of his trunk, but it's not a vanity press. James Macdonald often debunks this tale. In other words contrary to these folks Grisham never paid to publish. For my Xlibris book neither did I. The two aren't the same though.

[David Montgomery]

The story I've always heard is that he did self-publish it, so I'd be interested in seeing confirmation of this.

[Mark A. York]

Here you go: John Grisham Official Website

"One day at the Dessoto County courthouse, Grisham overheard the harrowing testimony of a twelve-year-old rape victim and was inspired to start a novel exploring what would have happened if the girl's father had murdered her assailants. Getting up at 5 a.m. every day to get in several hours of writing time before heading off to work, Grisham spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, it was eventually bought by Wynwood press, who gave it a modest 5,000 copy printing and published it in June 1988.

That might have put an end to Grisham's hobby. However, he had already begun his next book, and it would quickly turn that hobby into a new full-time career -- and spark one of publishing's greatest success stories. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on another novel, the story of a hotshot young attorney lured to an apparently perfect law firm that was not what it appeared. When he sold the film rights to The Firm to Paramount Pictures for $600,000, Grisham suddenly became a hot property among publishers, and book rights were bought by Doubleday. Spending 47 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list, The Firm became the bestselling novel of 1991."

As you can see Wynwood is not a vanity press.

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

"No matter how hard Karen apologizes for vanity presses nothing about them changes. None of it is good."

No matter how much I write, it is clear that Mark isn't actually reading my posts. Had he done so he would have seen that I apologize for nothing and in fact actively advise against people self-publishing unless they know what they're doing and have realistic expectations about what they hope to get out of it.

Unfortunately, Mark's logic is reversed. He starts with his conclusion (that self-publishing is bad) and carefully filters out all information that might indicate that the situation is actually more complex than that, ultimately ensuring that he will always come back to that same comfortable and simplistic conclusion he wants to reach. The fact that editors and agents (the publishing professionals he seems to idolize) tend to see things differently than he does is ignored in his crusade.

And so he learns nothing and teaches nothing, which is a shame, because if you go to the iUniverse site and read a few of the preview pages for his book on Alaska, you'll see he's actually a pretty interesting guy with some good stories to tell.

I doubt you'll read this post either, Mark, but in case you do I want to wish you the best in getting a good editor and telling your story to the world with more success than you have had. Once you lose the chip on your shoulder it could be some good stuff.

[David Montgomery]

Information on Wynwood Press seems tough to come by. I did find this, though, on the Bookman's Weekly website (on the topic of Vanity Presses): "One of the most expensive modern collectables: Grisham, John. A Time To Kill. New York: Wynwood Press, 1989...was a subsidy publication."

[Mark A. York]

I don't trust "bookman's" weekly out of Tuscon. Published authors I know say it's a small press and not a subsidy operation.

Karen, I'm an accomplished scientist and logician in the employ of the federal government in a scientific field. My data on self-publishing swamps anything you've said. In fact all you've said is that low expectations are enough for you. It's a good thing since your hooked on vanity publishing. Low is the only expectation to have. I have no chip. What I have is two books at real agencies in NY. What do you have?

[Mark A. York]

"Initially rejected by many publishers, it was eventually "bought" by Wynwood press, who gave it a modest 5,000 copy printing and published it in June 1988."

This says they bought it not the other way around.

Hard to find is right.

Mystery writer

[Karen Anne Mitchell]

What I have, Mark, is enough sense not to get pulled any further into a personal argument with a man whose posts and other writing clearly indicate that he has a problem controlling his temper, and who is now avoiding the subject of self-publishing altogether as he tries to start a pissing contest over resumes.

So I and my long resume (which, to respond to what I expect you'll say next, includes a major scholarly publisher approaching me about one of my books) are going to bow out now. Best of luck with those two books, Mark.

[Mark A. York]

Good for you, now quit beating the vanity drum. If people don't like the fact that I don't recommend vanity presses after using two of them, tough. Them's the facts ma'am. Vanity presses have taken in professors at universities as Publishamerica has shown, so it's more of a personality gullability quotient than anything. Apparently you match the profile.

[Rick]

Mark: Although I am probably not your target audience, I would never read one of your books. As Karen said, you are "actually a pretty interesting guy with some good stories to tell", but you are incredibly rude and condescending. I've seen your posts on several sites, and they are beginning to demonstrate the type of person you are. Internet communities are still communities, and the more you post in this way the more it damages your reputation (and ultimately your book sales). There are ways to disagree and state your opinion in a classy and respectful way (see the posts of David Montgomery or Lee Goldberg).

[Mark A. York]

When you're attacked for holding legitimate views on publishing supported by published authors, a lack of respect follows. All of the people insulting me are vanuty press authors. I understand their problems. I don't care if they won't learn. Who needs em? The vanity press companies do. They're customers, not authors.

[Dave Zeltserman]

"Self-publishing is not a way to make money, break-in to publishing, get reviewed, win friends or influence people. Yes, there are a few (very, very few) exceptions. But guess what? Those exceptions aren’t you (whoever “you” might be)."

Got to disagree with that statement, DM, since I think that was ME. Self-publishing did help me break into publishing with the end result selling the Italian rights to Fast Lane to Meridiano Zero and having my book published by Point Blank Press, a small but fairly prestigious publisher. Along the way picked up an agent, got great blurbs from folks like Ken Bruen, Vicki Hendricks, Ed Gorman, Bill Crider, Charlie Stella and many others, including a rave review from Kate's Mystery Bookstore and a hardboiled crime club selection from Poisoned Pen Bookstore. And some stuff's going on now that's looking more and more likely that the money is going to follow.

After saying all that, I wish I hadn't gone the self-publishing route, wish I had tried small publishers first, but you know, if I hadn't done what I did Fast Lane would still be sitting in my closet, Hardluck Stories (publishing the best noir/hardboiled fiction on the web) wouldn't exist, and my latest, Outsourced, where I have some people trying to do some big things with it, wouldn't have been written.

[Mark A. York]

David likes Pointblank. To me a POD is just that. If it wasn't there would be a print run and copies on shelves like Lee has.

[Peter L. Winkler]

Mark York wrote, "To me a POD is just that. If it wasn't there would be a print run and copies on shelves like Lee has."

Mark, have you tried previewing and editing your posts before publishing them? Quite a few of your sentences make no sense, like the one I quoted.

If the purpose of your comments on various bloga are to drive readers to investigate your blog, then the quality of your comments need improvement.

[Mark A. York]

Peter have you tried thought? They all make perfect sense if you can think. Pointblank is a POD press. Lee's publisher isn't. Pointblank isn't on a shelf. Lee's are. Is that clear enough? My comments are comments, not a sales pitch for my books.

As I've said, as PODs they are shackled with enough baggage that a handful of sell-publishing sympathetic blog commenters can't help me to overcome. The books were an academic experiment and the data is in. Critics of my comments just don't ike the message and want their hands held. Find that from someone else. You get the unvarnished truth from this journalist.

[Dave Zeltserman]

Mark,

Point Blank does use POD technology, the books are edited, they do have a return policy, they are on shelves at mystery bookstores, but regardless of whether they had a print run or are POD they probably wouldn't be in chains.

[David Montgomery]

Is it time for this discussion again?

Let's look over some of the authors on Point Blank's roster: Marcia Muller, John Lutz, Stuart Kaminsky, Ed Gorman, Dennis Lynds, James Sallis, Charles Willeford, Gary Phillips, Bill Pronzini...

They've proven their quality.

[Mark A. York]

That may be, as I don't frequent mystery only bookstores. Returns do make a big difference in the formula.

[David Montgomery]

I refuse to believe that Mark A. York would speak so definitively about something that he clearly had no real knowledge of. He just wouldn't do that. He's "a journalist," you know. I'm sorry, Zeltserman, but clearly you must be wrong.

Mark, please keep fighting the good fight!

[Mark A. York]

OK even with returns the books are vanity. As a journalist I can't defer to obscure mystery writers who sign with a POD only sold at specialty stores. Just where are these located? Dubuque? Kansas City? It's not a fight. I just don't care about POD presses. They all don't count in my view. Sell it to a real one.

[Dave Zeltserman]

Obscure, huh? Let's say at this point relatively obscure, although I don't think you could say the same of some of the other Point Blank authors that Montgomery listed previously. Calling it a vanity press though is an odd choice. The definition of a vanity press is a publisher that publishes a book at the expense of the author. Point Blank not only doesn't do that but is selective in what they publish. As an engineer for 20+ years, nothing I hate more than sloppiness in thought. Btw. How large a print run does a publisher need to print for you to consider them a legitimate publisher?

[Rick Russell]

Mark York wrote: "I don't trust "bookman's" weekly out of Tuscon." Please get your facts straight. AB Bookman's Weekly is published from Tempe, Arizona, by professionals in the fields of journalism and rare books. Like any legitimate journalistic media we check what we print and have at least three independant sources for the things we publish. The reason that we may appear to support self and vanity publishing is simply that, in the rare book area, from which our audience earns its living, vanity and self published books are worth more than trade published books. In the modern world, trade publication in the United States equates to both mediocrity and bowlderization. Literature under this system is nearly impossible, therefore, small press, self and vanity publication are the only possibilities for lasting, and valuable literature, and thus the only currently published books that have relevance in our market. As far as I can see it is a very bad deal, monetarily, for the author, therefore the author must be committed to literature as an art to do it at all. As to not trusting us Mark, your call, however, I do have several books in print dating back to 1984 with both small and larger trade houses, and enough experience in selling rare books to have a few clues.

[Mark A. York]

Pardon me "Tempe" is the center of publishing. I used to live in Apache Junction which I suppose makes that suburb the "Brooklyn" of Arizona.

"Literature under this system is nearly impossible, therefore, small press, self and vanity publication are the only possibilities for lasting, and valuable literature, and thus the only currently published books that have relevance in our market."

I simply don't buy this premise. Sounds like more vanity press shillery to me. Have a nice day. You can't sell that idea to this journalist.

As to Dave, I've never heard of these authors. Publishamerica says exaactly the same things you just did. I know it's better than that, but like the other instant small POD presses, Behler, Winterwolf and so on, they just don't get books on shelves, that's why they go POD. Moreover, the clinetle are former autoworkers and engineers without any literary training or background. I'd say 3000 copies offset. It shows an expectation of sales they're willing to gamble on "a priori." Anything less than that is a vanity press.

[Mark A. York]

"AB Bookman is a Trademark of Intergalactic Inc. of Tucson, Arizona, all rights reserved."

[anonymous]

I have been collecting rare and contemporary signed first editions all my life and this statement is simply not true, at least not for CONTEMPORARY self-published books:

"The reason that we may appear to support self and vanity publishing is simply that, in the rare book area, from which our audience earns its living, vanity and self published books are worth more than trade published books."

Modern Vanity/POD books are not collectible. That's just baloney. Rick, you are embarrassing yourself, especially among those of us in the field of collecting rare books.

[Rick Russell]

anonymous,
Do yourself a favor, go through the Ahearn's, my book, and/or Marie Tedford's and exerpt the self-published books. Could open your eyes a little. Or are you one of those who paid in three figures for The Firm? If so, I've got a bridge for you.

Mark,
"Sounds like more vanity press shillery to me. Have a nice day. You can't sell that idea to this journalist." Kinda doubt you're a journalist, usually journalists check out what they say a whole lot better than you do. Not that's its particularily admirable to do so, but the habit gets engrained in pros.

[David Montgomery]

The vast majority of self-published or vanity novels have value only as toilet paper. However, if by some stroke of massive good fortune the author actually makes it as a success, I reckon the book would be worth something then. I wouldn't suggest investing the college fund in them, though.

As for them being where the literature is (whatever the hell that means)... well, let's just say my experience runs to the contrary.

[Mark A. York]

I'm elated to agree completly with what David just said. And anonymous to boot. My facts paint you for exactly the shill you are Russell.

[Rick Russell]

Mark,
While you can't possibly be a journalist, at least a professional one, given your last statement, what facts? Shill for who? Having been an editor since 1973, those are what I would require to publish you. My god man, your tone wouldn't even be held absent malice. Certainly no professional publisher puts up with you. Blogging is not journalism, my friend. I don't totally disagree with David. It is precisely the fact that most self and vanity publications "have value only as toilet paper" that makes the ones that aren't worth so much. And precisely why finding them can be so lucretive.

Mark, frankly, you are a real dummy. Though it is amusing to come back here for your comic relief.

[Mark A. York]

Yeah Rick most editors call critics "dummies." It's SOP. I'm a real one with a degree in reporting news and environmental ecology. I'm a biologist working for the feds on issues you wouldn't comprehend. I'm sure that pales in comparison to finding the "vintage" vanity press book. I'll bet Carleton is popular in your crowd. I just removed Vantage Press from my google ads. What a joke. You're amusing alright in a sick sort of way like the fanficcers.

[Mark A. York]

Go ahead show what constitutes such a vanity prtes book. What's the year class? 1999?

[Rick Russell]

Government employee, that explains it. Civil Servant- Rarely civil and serves no useful purpose. Stop masquerading as a journalist, you aren't one, and stop saying you are until you get a real job. Exposition bio of Ted Williams goes about $300. as an example since you asked for one. BTW- you are not a critic either. If you want to learn to be one or the other do your homework and, at least make a stab at a minimal level of professionalism.