In general I have been a little scathing about writers who invent the name of a "publisher", obfuscating that their book is self-published. I have seen many cases where the identity of the press is further shored up by accepting submissions from other authors. Often followed by less than deft editing, packaging and promotion--leading eventually to disappointment, acrimony and threats of legal action.
But then I came across rare but legitimate stories such as Maggie Anton's (author of the Rashi's Daughters books) where the front press opened the door to mainstream success. And I find myself reading opinions such as the following by Christopher J. Jarmick with more of an open mind.
"....you don't have to come right out at tell them it is a self-published book and if you have been reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal etc.. and the book looks as if it was published by a quality small press, then omitting that detail will give you a chance of getting a review."
Especially as it is followed by:
"If a book editor contacts you and asks you point blank if it is a self-published book, then you must decide if you want to lie and risk pissing off the book editor or worse... "
So what do other authors think about misdirection and lies of omission to avoid the roadblocks normally faced by self-published books?
But then I came across rare but legitimate stories such as Maggie Anton's (author of the Rashi's Daughters books) where the front press opened the door to mainstream success. And I find myself reading opinions such as the following by Christopher J. Jarmick with more of an open mind.
"....you don't have to come right out at tell them it is a self-published book and if you have been reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal etc.. and the book looks as if it was published by a quality small press, then omitting that detail will give you a chance of getting a review."
Especially as it is followed by:
"If a book editor contacts you and asks you point blank if it is a self-published book, then you must decide if you want to lie and risk pissing off the book editor or worse... "
So what do other authors think about misdirection and lies of omission to avoid the roadblocks normally faced by self-published books?
Comments
a wombwell book
It had nothing to do with trying to avoid looking like a self PODded title, and everything to do with the interior logic, or poetic structure even,of the book itself.
As indeed everything in the book is.
It wasn't about being a publishing house wannabee. You see, there are other titles to come and they need to be bundled together somehow. An 'imprint' does that.
Some PODders are there for the art, not the publishing mystique.
Poor fools that they are.
It's really all about integrity, isn't it? I would much rather read a book by a self-pub who worked their butt off, slaved over their art, and honestly believed in it enough to make it happen, instead of pulling the fake press name trump card or taking the pitiable woe is me tact as they cry over the piles of rejection letters yet do nothing to shift the paradigm.
And how embarassing that must be later when they get caught in the lie.
If you decide to self-pub, just keep in mind the risk you took, the murky waters you braved ... be proud of it, you have every reason to be.
That wasn't what fueled her success, though. It was her direct targetting of her audience and bringing them into her world.
Anton says, "I chose the name Banot Press- Hebrew for 'daughters'- rather than the more obvious 'Anton Press,' because I wanted to maintain the illusion of a small California Press rather than a blatant self-publishing effort."
But that's the position we self-published authors are in. Except ... I allow my readers to try before they buy, with a free sizeable excerpt. If I can get them to the point where they've read the excerpt and liked it, their choice whether to buy the novel or not will be based solely on their enjoyment. They simply will not care whether it's a self-published novel.
I am always forthright on my website about the fact that I'm self-published. It hasn't stopped my books from selling. Readers do not care.
But if an author isn't willing to share some writing for free, they won't buy your book anyway.
This is my experience.
I chose to be unconventional and use my Website URL as my press name, simply because it's an easy way to tell readers where to find my e-books. Nor am I keen on the "fool the reviewers" motive for adopting a press name.
However, there's something to be said for reassuring the readers. When they look at a book, they may or may not be trying to weed out self-published books, but they're certainly looking for evidence that whoever published the book knew what they were doing. If I'd gone immediately into print publishing, I'd have had no qualms about using a traditional-style press name, as a way of telling the readers, "I understand the publishing business, and I'm following its conventions."
When I was a teenager, The Cottage Press lived on the ground floor of my house. It was a typesetting business run solely by my parents.