Self-Publishing a book

[Bee]

There was a time when I was a novice who had never written a book, and I had to earn the right to have my work published.

Not only have your earned your place on the bookshelf, but based on the list of awards on your author's biography (found in several venues) apparently others feel you deserve to be recognized for your efforts, too.

 

[huskerblitz]

Just throwing this out, but I'm not overly concerned about my ability to write. The idea was actually born from one of my professors (who has a few publications out). I've written professionally before, though never before on the Civil War. My only concern is the financial aspect and going through the long process with what I feel is a very low census market.

 

[DaveBrt]

I think both Navy and Eric are out of line.

Navy, why do you think publishers publish? Its to make a profit -- its a business! They have no obligation to publish anything they do not expect to improve their financial position.

Eric, we no longer need gate keepers in publishing. What do you mean "not every book deserves to be published?" Says who? Not published by a profit-making company, maybe. But I can put forward my own effort and expense and publish if I want to. The public can buy or not, but its my choice to put it out.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I think both Navy and Eric are out of line.

Navy, why do you think publishers publish? Its to make a profit -- its a business! They have no obligation to publish anything they do not expect to improve their financial position.

Eric, we no longer need gate keepers in publishing. What do you mean "not every book deserves to be published?" Says who? Not published by a profit-making company, maybe. But I can put forward my own effort and expense and publish if I want to. The public can buy or not, but its my choice to put it out.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And I was responding to being insulted by someone I've never heard of or seen here before.

 

[huskerblitz]

I think both Navy and Eric are out of line.

Navy, why do you think publishers publish? Its to make a profit -- its a business! They have no obligation to publish anything they do not expect to improve their financial position.

Eric, we no longer need gate keepers in publishing. What do you mean "not every book deserves to be published?" Says who? Not published by a profit-making company, maybe. But I can put forward my own effort and expense and publish if I want to. The public can buy or not, but its my choice to put it out.

I agree to an extent. I've searched and purchased/read everything I could about certain aspects. Some were not great, but they still provided me with information and avenues to find sources elsewhere.

But I do see Eric's point. There are some really poorly written stuff out there and if it's bad history then it becomes a concern. But I agree with your point the public will ultimately decide the worthiness of the product.

 

[War Horse]

I agree to an extent. I've searched and purchased/read everything I could about certain aspects. Some were not great, but they still provided me with information and avenues to find sources elsewhere.

But I do see Eric's point. There are some really poorly written stuff out there and if it's bad history then it becomes a concern. But I agree with your point the public will ultimately decide the worthiness of the product.

Killing Lincoln rings a bell. **** for sale. Bill O'Reilly should be ashamed.

 

[War Horse]

What do you mean "not every book deserves to be published?"

Trust me, not every book deserves to be published.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Let me put this in terms that you can perhaps understand, Dave.

Ten years ago, Ted Savas sent me a book manuscript to review. It had been submitted to him by its author, and Ted didn't know enough about the content to feel comfortable. I read the thing. I then told him that he would damage his hard-earned reputation for publishing outstanding books if he published this pile of ****. Fortunately, he listened to me. The author immediately turned around and self-published this thing because his ego needed him to do so. The book is terrible. It was imposed on the public because the author's ego demanded it. It's not worthy of publication. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. But it's out there. And it shouldn't be.

Eric Jacobsen publishes his own stuff because he wants to control the process. Eric does great work and he has managed to create good looking books. His work is definitely worthwhile and would have been published by a commercial publisher had Eric wanted to go that route. Good books can definitely be the product of self-publishing. But experience tells me that Eric and his work are the exception and not the rule.

Call me a snob if you like. I know absolutely nothing of your work and have no opinion about it one way or the other as a result. But I firmly believe that only worthwhile books should be published because I believe that bad books filled with bad information and poor writing should not be imposed upon the public, particularly if the public is going to believe fraudulent information presented as the truth--and commercial publishers sometimes get suckered into publishing fraudulent material too (see Carhart, Tom for proof positive).

 

[War Horse]

Let me put this in terms that you can perhaps understand, Dave.

Ten years ago, Ted Savas sent me a book manuscript to review. It had been submitted to him by its author, and Ted didn't know enough about the content to feel comfortable. I read the thing. I then told him that he would damage his hard-earned reputation for publishing outstanding books if he published this pile of ****. Fortunately, he listened to me. The author immediately turned around the self-published this thing because his ego needed him to do so. The book is terrible. It was imposed on the public because the author's ego demanded it. It's not worthy of publication. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. But it's out there. And it shouldn't be.

Eric Jacobsen publishes his own stuff because he wants to control the process. Eric does great work and he has managed to create good looking books. His work is definitely worthwhile and would have been published by a commercial publisher had Eric wanted to go that route.

Call me a snob if you like. But I believe that only worthwhile books should be published because I believe that bad books filled with bad information and poor writing should not be imposed upon the public, particularly if the public is going to believe fraudulent information presented as the truth--and commercial publishers sometimes get suckered into publishing fraudulent material too (see Carhart, Tom for proof positive).

I'd add most of the public only reads one or maybe two books on the CW in their lifetime. If they get bad information the book does more harm than good. The public deserves better.

 

[Bee]

Call me a snob if you like. But I believe that only worthwhile books should be published because I believe that bad books filled with bad information and poor writing should not be imposed upon the public, particularly if the public is going to believe fraudulent information presented as the truth--and commercial publishers sometimes get suckered into publishing fraudulent material too (see Carhart, Tom for proof positive).

I believe what you are describing are standards -- very high standards. There is nothing wrong with setting the bar at a high rung. After all, this is not like the kiddie games where everyone gets a trophy. One has to earn their place on the shelf by producing worthy material.

 

[huskerblitz]

Killing Lincoln rings a bell. **** for sale. Bill O'Reilly should be ashamed.

Shrug. I read it and liked its pace. It was good for the general public, which was the intended audience. Wouldn't fall anywhere near my top books but it was a quick summer day read. I'm not sure it would even fall into the same audience category of Swanson's book.

 

[War Horse]

I believe what you are describing are standards -- very high standards. There is nothing wrong with setting the bar at a high rung. After all, this is not like the kiddie games where everyone gets a trophy. One has to earn their place on the shelf by producing worthy material.

There's very little **** on my shelf. I'm eliminating it one by one.

 

[War Horse]

Shrug. I read it and liked its pace. It was good for the general public, which was the intended audience. Wouldn't fall anywhere near my top books but it was a quick summer day read. I'm not sure it would even fall into the same audience category of Swanson's book.

Ok I own Swanson's book. It's not even close. Swanson's work is excellent. O'Reilly's book has soooo many historical mistakes it's hard to know where to begin. Night and day comparison. I do agree Swanson does an excellent job. I wholeheartedly endorse his work.

 

[huskerblitz]

Ok I own Swanson's book. It's not even close. Swanson's work is excellent. O'Reilly's book has soooo many historical mistakes it's hard to know where to begin. Night and day comparison. I do agree Swanson does an excellent job. I wholeheartedly endorse his work.

Yes, which is why I phrased my response how I did. The point was audience. The way O'Reilly wrote was not really meant for people on this site. I read it because my wife got it for me. Those two books exists on different planes, though Swanson's book was more mainstream than most historical works.

 

[huskerblitz]

I guess I have a similar view with books as I do movies. I don't trust most opinions of armchair experts because most can't get past themselves to realize there are considerations others have to make to break even or make profits. I take them for what they are worth...whether or not I enjoyed it. Same with books. That is why I read multiple books on the same subject. I have disagreed with historians take on some things, including the venerated Ed Bearrs and Steven Woodworth. I still trust them but have came to different conclusions than they have because I've read multiple accounts and don't arrive at the same place as they did. It happens. Point is, there is room for plenty of different views and believe or not different takes. Someone wants to touch ink to paper...more power to the them. Doesn't mean anyone has to swallow what they are peddling.

 

[War Horse]

Yes, which is why I phrased my response how I did. The point was audience. The way O'Reilly wrote was not really meant for people on this site. I read it because my wife got it for me. Those two books exists on different planes, though Swanson's book was more mainstream than most historical works.

My son bought me O'Reilly's book as a Christmas present. I didn't have the heart to tell him what I really thought of it. I completely understand. What I'm saying is, if that's all you've read on the Lincoln assignation, your sadly misinformed, no fault of your own. You're a victim of bad historical work that was published because a big name backed it.

 

[huskerblitz]

My son bought me O'Reilly's book as a Christmas present. I didn't have the heart to tell him what I really thought of it. I completely understand. What I'm saying is, if that's all you've read on the Lincoln assignation, your sadly misinformed, no fault of your own. You're a victim of bad historical work that was published because a big name backed it.

Yes, but my point was the audience it was designed for simply doesn't care enough. They want to be entertained. I'm fine with that. History is not for everyone. In my view a little is better than none.

 

[War Horse]

Yes, but my point was the audience it was designed for simply doesn't care enough. They want to be entertained. I'm fine with that. History is not for everyone. In my view a little is better than none.

I agree with a little is better than nothing, however when something is published under the title history. The public deserves it to be as accurate as possible. It's fine to go against the mainstream as long as the authors take has evidence to back it up. When it's outright wrong. That's a different story. I expected better from O'Reilly. He's a big name and the public believes wholeheartedly in what they read with his name attached. Just a simply difference of opinion.

 

[unicornforge]

Basically there seems to be two options: 1) follow your passion and write what you wish to write to satisfy yourself .... or 2) identify a market with a demand for a type of book and target your book to meet that demand. ..... It pretty much depends on whether your need is to make money, or just write to make yourself happy. ........ Hmmm, maybe a third reason: 3) put your research in a book form so that you don't have to spend a lot of time and money photocopying your research for people that ask for copies of your research.

 

[5fish]

And I was responding to being insulted by someone I've never heard of or seen here before.

I do not think he was insulting just disagreeing.

Trust me, not every book deserves to be published.

True in one sense but not true in another... Between the acknowledge experts and the public, the best works will rise to the top...

Insult edited out by moderator JerseyBart

I believe that bad books filled with bad information and poor writing should not be imposed upon the public

I think imposed is the wrong word. The bad books are offered to the public and the public either reads them and approves them worthy or not. These bad books are not imposed upon anyone. You want the market to have gatekeepers again controlling the content but those days are long gone... If you can put your book into a PDF file you can e-publish for very few hundred dollars... Remember, the bad old days when it took thousands of dollars to self-publish.

I think you want the market to be regulated again... for self-interest reasons...

I'd add most of the public only reads one or maybe two books on the CW in their lifetime. If they get bad information the book does more harm than good. The public deserves better.

All this protecting the public from bad ideas, what is a bad idea and what are you wanting to protect the people from? I like to point out the Dunning School gave us bad history even false history and they were the gatekeepers of their day.