Deadlines and Other Oddities

by Janis Patterson

Did you ever wonder about the etymology of the word ‘deadline’? It sounds so vaguely threatening. “You reach this line (time?) or you’re dead.” Did the kings of old give their serfs a deadline for bringing in their tributes and lop off their heads if they missed it? Come to think of it, I have known a couple of old-time editors who would have just loved the power to do that – in fact, getting one’s head (or job) lopped off on occasion would have been considered preferable to their reactions.

I wonder that those of us in the wordsmith world have not been able to find a more pleasant, less belligerent term for the time a manuscript/whatever should be turned in. Final day? Term line? End time?

Not that it makes much difference these days anyway. I grew up in advertising, back when deadline really meant deadline. Even being a few hours over the limit was enough to get you raked over the coals. When I moved over into journalism, missing a deadline could get you fired. Now it seems that a deadline is more of a suggestion than a distinct cut-off date, which is something I don’t understand. If you’re given a contract and a date your project is due, hadn’t you better uphold it?

Now there are a few reasons for missing a real deadline without notification to your publisher – death, ending up in a full body cast at your local hospital, things of that order – not that you feel you need a small vacay and will need an additional two months, or that you had another contract come up that offered more money, or any other reason, legitimate or not. If someone realizes they can’t make a deadline, they should notify their publisher immediately. I don’t see why people don’t get that.

On the other hand, there’s a lot about the other side of publishing I don’t get. Why have advances fallen, the quality of editing and proofing gone into freefall and all the responsibility for publicity fallen on the shoulders of the writers? (Unless you’re in the Roberts-King-Koontz stratosphere and, of course, generally excepting a listing in the catalogues.) Why are advances to celebrities and politicians astronomical (in the millions) when it’s pretty much accepted that their books not only won’t earn out, but will be seen on remainder tables and cut-rate bookstores for the next decade or two? This, when working mid-list writers, the ones who write the books people actually like to read and who are the mainstay of the publishing industry, find it hard if not impossible to support themselves on their writing.

I don’t understand. Too much focus on money, not enough on books, or the quality of books. Seems contra-indicative.

Like I said, I don’t understand, but I’ve got a deadline blowing dragon breath on the back of my neck and I’ve got to go work. If anybody figures it out, let me know.

What About Self Publishing?

by Janis Susan May/Janis Patterson

On one of my loops there has been for some time a very spirited discussion about self-publishing – some correspondents are very outspoken that it should just ‘go away and let real publishing take over again.’ Some admit to being confused or uninformed. Some – including me – are quite vocal that self pubbing is not only here to stay, but that it should be. Because I feel so strongly about this, I have taken my response to this somewhat contentious thread and put it here.

For all those who think that ‘self publishing should just go away and let real publishing take over again’ I ask... Why? Self publishing IS real publishing, with the added benefits of freedom and due rewards for the writer. It gets the story from the writer's mind into the reader's hand, and that's the rock-bottom basis of publishing. For centuries writers have been treated as at best the red-headed-stepchildren of the publishing industry, at worst nothing more than a necessary evil. While there are the mega-bestsellers who receive fantastic amounts, the majority of writers are paid least and last, which is egregiously illogical as without them the publishing industry would not exist. Trad publishers are notorious for keeping authors in the dark about sales figures and give them little or no input into covers, marketing (when any marketing is done at all) and basically tell writers "Give us the books we will accept, allow us to shape them, take what we give you without any questions and go away."

Self publishing has changed all that. The author is now in charge and is finally getting paid in proportion to their contribution. It's more work for them, but the rewards are worth it. Is there dreck in self-publishing? Of course. Freedom is always messy, but that's no reason to condemn a new process when there are so many benefits. Self-publishing is the essence of freedom - let the market, ie the reader, decide what they want.

If self pubbing were not good for the writer, why would so many trad pubbed writers be switching? They want commensurate rewards for their work. They want control. They want to know what is happening and be able to try new things. In return, every real writer I know puts more care into their self pubbed books than most traditional publishers. Check a trad pubbed book (especially one of the Big 5) against a professional writer's self pubbed one. I’ll bet you there are more mistakes - typo, formatting, etc. - in the trad pubbed. The professional self pubbing writers I know hire editors, formatters and artists, many of whom have quit the big houses and gone into freelancing. They too want to make more money. And what is wrong with that?

Should everyone self publish? Obviously not. But - ! Every writer should have the freedom to choose whether they want to self publish or not.

Self pubbing is also good for the reader. Self pubbing gives readers the freedom to choose what kind of books they want. Niche publishing flourishes with self pubbing. Specialized stories or cross-genre books, each pulling too small an audience to interest the big boys are now available. Readers can now choose the specific type of stories they want to read and not be forced to choose from just what is profitable for the trad publishers or acceptable to their gatekeepers. The reader is now in control, just as is the writer.

It's too late to put things back the way they were, even if the trad houses were suddenly to wise up and do everything right. The genie is out of the bottle. If Amazon - the 600 lb gorilla of self-publishing - were to decide to stop putting out books for self pubbed authors or to change their payment schedules some other profit-minded entrepreneur would step in.

And what about the dreck, the garbage books? There have always been garbage books, even under the big trad pubbing umbrella. Yes, there are more now, but that will pass. Millions of people have always thought they could write a book better than the one they're reading, and a very few of them were right. Many try and most never even finish their manuscript. Of those who do many go right on to publication, ready or not. In the old days pre-self pubbing, these tyros were mainly caught by the gatekeepers. They either quit writing or learned to write well - and to conform to the Procrustean bed of the trad pubbers. Now they can string together as many words as they like, call it a book, put it out and then be shocked when it doesn't bring them instant success and fortune. Then they either quit writing or buckle down and learn to write.

Is the system perfect? No, of course not. No system ever is, but with the option of self pubbing, the new gatekeepers are the writers and the readers themselves. And that's the way it should be.

Publishing and Other Perils - A Rant

             In the greatly lamented and only partially mythic ‘Golden Era’ of publishing printing books was a gentlemen’s game. The publishing houses were primarily large and privately owned by individual gentlemen rather than omnivorous multi-national corporations. These companies were actually interested in books and belles lettres. They read things submitted by writers as well as by agents and when they found a writer they liked, they worked to build his career, finding them editors who understood their voice, dealing with bookstores for good placement and arranging publicity. They took care of all the mechanical necessities and even sometimes – if they really liked the writer’s work – gave him a second chance if the current release didn’t reach their projected sales. Paying an advance was standard practice. In those warmly-thought-of days, a writer’s job was writing.

     Fast forward to today. Ah, how the business has changed. There are still a lot of different publishing line names on the spines of books, but most are controlled by the Big Five publishing houses, which just a short time ago was the Big Six. During the corporate feeding frenzy of the 80s nearly all the mid-sized independent publishing houses were absorbed – willingly or not – into the current monolithic, corporation-controlled houses, most of which go about selling books with the same techniques and artistic sensitivity as they use to sell widgets or shoes or hand tools.

     It is difficult if not impossible to approach any of the large paper publishing houses without an agent. As they are now the ‘first readers’ and arguably the arbiters for what will be seen, too many agents have begun to regard themselves as the center of the industry… and placing their bottom line over the needs of the writer, the publisher and the reading public. In a devil’s bargain with agents, publishers have been making their contracts more and more friendly to their own bottom line and to further this end making them less and less comprehensible. The writer, without whom there would not be an industry at all, always seems to come at the bottom of the pile.

     There are small and electronic publishers who do read unsolicited/unagented manuscripts, but in an alarming twist many of them are refusing even to look at a manuscript unless it is formatted to their own exacting specifications. Presumably this is so if they do contract the book, they can put it straight into production without having to bother with any typesetters or formatters. Since when did formatting become a writer’s responsibility? And most especially as a prerequisite for submission?

     Also many publishing companies ask in their submission requirements “What platform do you have for publicity? What kind of a marketing plan do you intend to implement?” Apparently it’s not enough for the writer to have written the book, and formatted it, now they are expected to handle nearly all the publicity for it. This is a plan that benefits only the publisher, who does not have to spend money for publicity. Let the writer do it! 

     The logic for this is particularly flawed; not only does publicity take precious time that should be spent in writing the next book, but as most writers are not publicists, it also forces the writer to re-invent the wheel. How much more logical it would be for publishers – who take the lion’s share of the money anyway – to have a well-oiled publicity machine with contacts made and slots ready and waiting instead of having each writer individually either contact every outlet or pay big bucks for a publicist of their own.

      There is a truism in publishing that ‘money flows to the author’ but in this current world it is becoming commonplace for an author to pay to have his manuscript edited before submission, where it will then be re-edited by the publishing house (or not!) upon acceptance. I must admit this leaves me speechless. Do writers think that sending in a pre-edited manuscript guarantees acceptance? Or are they such bad writers that they know without a pre-submission professional edit they would have no chance at all? Neither prospect is particularly alluring.

     And all these responsibilities and all these expenses paid by the writer come at a time where advances are shrinking or are non-existent.

     Some houses ask for a writer’s standardized input on the cover artwork, and with that it ends there for most. No matter if the cover is ugly, inaccurate or stupid, it stays that way because the marketing department says so. This, however, is a fading practice, especially with good small and electronic publishers.

     To make things even worse, after the book is sold and the writer has waited out whatever time the publisher decrees proper, he receives a royalty statement of books sold. Most are near indecipherable, and short of an audit (for which the writer pays, of course) the writer must trust the publisher that the figures shown are accurate. May I amend that? If the writer is lucky he receives a royalty statement; there are several publishers who have to be badgered and kept after (which again steals away time which should be spent writing) to send a statement, a process which is not guaranteed to have any success.

     Kind of makes one wonder why anyone would ever want to be part of a profession that depends on one kind of skilled artist to exist at all but treats those artists so badly. Of course, no one house does all of these things, but so many do enough of them that it does give one pause.

     I would sincerely like to hear a publishing house representative give a cogent and logical explanation of why the writer, who creates the product and without whom there would be no publishing industry, is treated like a red-haired stepchild and always comes at the end of the line. And the money trail.

     Perhaps the most astonishing thing is that publishing houses – especially the Big Five – profess amazement that so many writers are now beginning to self publish. If writers had received the kind of treatment – and the share of royalties – that they deserve, I wonder if self-publishing would ever have taken off.

Janis Patterson

Why do We Keep on Writing?

Sometimes I ask myself why I spend so much time writing and promoting--especially when I get my royalty reports. Yes, the books are selling, but not a breathtaking pace and by the time I get my cut there certainly isn't much to brag about.

So many folks have gone to putting their own books on Kindle, but I hardly have time to do what I do now, I really don't want to learn how to do something else. My publishers do a good job of it and my books look good--plus I do pretty well selling the trade paperbacks at book and craft festivals. I don't want to have to learn how to design covers and the insides of the book--I want to write.

I like the writing life that I've carved out for myself even if it's not hugely profitable. I wouldn't be the chairman of the PSWA writing conference if I hadn't been writing books with law enforcement officers in them. We just completed the latest one and I'm happy to say it was a great success, I met a lot of great professionals in the law enforcement fields and I got to see old friends too while learning a lot. Even sold some books. If you'd like to know more about the conference visit http://www.policewriter.com and check out the Conference Newsletter. There are also pictures of the conference there.

Going to other conferences and conventions is something I enjoy too. I'm headed to Killer Nashville in August and I've already signed up for Left Coast Crime in Sacramento.

When I attend the book festivals, I get to meet readers--that's something I love. We're trying a new one in Tehacahpi, returning to the Nipomo library's annual affair, and are also doing the Central Coast Book Festival in San Luis Obispo.

Because I'm a writer and make appearances places, I was asked to be a presenter for the Central Coast Writer's Conference this year. Talking and teaching about writing is something else I love.

So, if I wasn't a writer, I wouldn't be doing all of the above--so guess I just keep on plugging away. For those who do read my books, I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Marilyn