According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the word "publish" is defined as follows: To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale. By this definition, printing off copies of your poem on typing paper and scattering them in a parking lot would qualify as "published." So if you've every made a homemade flyer, congratulations. You are a published author!
Well, not really. That's the funny thing about dictionaries, after all. The true definition rarely reflects the actual intent. If we were really going to define publishing in terms of what it actually means to a writer, we would need to change it to say: To prepare and issue material for public distribution or sale in a fixed media format in such a manner as to adhere to the basic standard that are generally accepted as the norm for the format. Regardless of what the dictionary definition says, this is in fact how people in the industry construe the word. And this is important to understand if you want to cross over from "writer" to "published writer."
In reality, there are two types of publishing. There is publishing just to spread stuff around, and then there is credible publishing. Publishing just to spread stuff around is when you post your poems on your own blog. You're just throwing it out there. If people like it they like it. If they don't they don't. Credible publishing is getting your poem published in a poetry chapbook by an actual publisher. Your work has met certain requirements for inclusion in said chapbook, and is presented in a manner that adheres to the basic standards for the format.
On the surface, publishing just for the sake of spreading stuff around may seem harmless. In fact, some places (particularly on the internet) encourage it. But before you go posting your work anywhere and everywhere that will let you post it, realize that you may be doing more harm to your writing career than good.
*Destruction of First Time Rights
The moment you present your work in a fixed form, whether it is on the internet or a magazine or a book, you have destroyed what is known as First Time Rights. When you sell a story, for example, you aren't actually "selling" the story, you are selling the rights to reproduce the story. Except in extreme cases like Work-for-hire, the copyright always remains with the author, so you are merely extending certain rights to a publisher to use your copyright protected material.
First Time Rights means you are granting a publisher the right to reproduce a story for the first time. Many magazines, newspapers, journals, and book publishers pay a premium for original work. Some ONLY accept original work. By making your work available on the internet, you have in effect closed the door to a pool of potential markets.
*Nobody Pays for What They Can Get for Free
Remember previously when I discussed the costs associated with publishing a book? You are trying to convince a publisher you are worth spending $100,000 on, remember? Does giving away the book you want a publisher to pay to produce make any sense? Say to a publisher, "the excerpt I posted on my website has been download 10,000 times," and you tell him there is a huge market interested in your writing. Say to a publisher "I made my book available as a free download and it's been downloaded 10,000 times!" and you tell a publisher you've already given the book away to a huge part of your potential market.
The internet is full of moochers. The people you are most likely to reach by posting your work on the internet are also the mostly likely to be happy having the work only available on the internet. They aren't going to be inclined to go buy a print version of something they have already read and stored on their hard drives.
*Potential Copyright Infringement
In the U.S., the moment you set your work into a finished format, it is protected by copyright. However, copyright law is a bit more complicated than that. While you can sue someone to stop them from circulating copyright protected material, you can't collect for damages unless the work is actually registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. (AND NO! Mailing a registered copy to yourself, called the Poor Man's Copyright, offers zero protection under U.S. law). So let's say you posted your poetry, for free, on a website. Someone else decided they like your poems and decided to reproduce them on THEIR website. Or worse, someone decides they like your poems and decides to pass them off as their own.
And even if your work is registered with the Copyright Office, you may find yourself having a hard time proving damages if the defendant can show you posted your stuff for free in ten different places. If the work is already available for free elsewhere, why would you expect to be compensated now?
*Crappy by Association
So you think posting your work all over the internet will help get you noticed? Don't count on it. Repeat after me. "Publishers do not troll sites looking for potential writers." Do you know why? Because publishers have piles of manuscripts sitting on their desks. I for one am not about to troll around Fictionpress hoping to find something publishable. While I do often post to Yahoo Answers, I don't go there looking for poetry. In fact, I don't remember the name of one so-called writer who has ever posted a poem or story in than manner. The vast majority of poetry and stories published on these free-for-all sites is crap. Sure, there may be one or two good stories here or there, but it isn't worth the effort of serious readers or publishers to shovel through all of the crap to find it.
Let me tell you the dirty little secret of most of these so-called "writing" communities. They are full of people with no interest in reading your work. The majority of the people who frequent these sites are only interested in "building a name" and tooting their own horns. They are not there for any love of literature or desire to actually read. Even in the ones that require participation, few people will actually offer real reviews for two reasons. One, they don't know enough about what good literature is to make a valid judgment call. Two, they are so afraid of retaliatory bad reviews they won't dare leave a bad one for someone else. They are incestuous little pits where writers go to stagnant and hide from real criticism. They few good writers that do start visiting these sites quickly leave, as they learn it just isn't worth the effort.
*Credits Only Count if They are Credible
So you think you are building a resume with all of these posts? You aren't. Unless an ezine is already credible to begin with, it means nothing. Many writing guilds only allow you to lists publishing credits for which you have been paid. Try to pass off you fan fiction stories at Muggles.net as legitimate publishing credits and you'll find your query rapidly tossed in the trash.
How do you know if an ezine or website is credible? The most obvious clue would be to look at it objectively and not as someone desperate to publish. Is it full of spelling and grammar errors? Look like something done by a ten year old? Does it require editorial approval to include work, or does it let anyone post anything? Is it on some free host and covered with dozens of google ads and banners?
Is it a paying market? The internet is full of people more than happy to let you supply them with free content for their sites. Do you know why? Because writers who give their work away for free also tend to link to these websites on their own, and they also tend to spam every forum they frequent announcing they were just "published." So these writers are not only working for free, but they are providing free advertising for the website! There are, however, plenty of electronic publications that do pay.
What is the nature of the readership? Is the readership comprised of actual readers, or other desperate writers? Or more importantly, ask yourself this question. "If I wasn't looking to be published and came across this site, would I stay around to read anything?"
Don't ever be afraid to look critically at a potential market. Because make no mistake, others in the industry will look critically at it if you try to pass it off as a legitimate publishing credit.
*Self-publishing does not equal publishing
Take it from someone who did, in fact, self-publisher her first book. Self-publishing is only relevant if you actually can act like a publisher. Uploading a document to Lulu.com, slapping a generic cover on it, buying a distro package, and spamming the forums does not make you a published author any more than if you went to the local copy center and made copies of your stories to put in a binder. But this is a topic I've discussed in other articles, so I won't go further.
Now please understand, if you have no desire to become a published author, don't care whether or not you are ever paid, and just want to share what you wrote with others, feel free to post away. There is nothing wrong with that per se. BUT, if your ultimate goal is to eventually get a traditional publisher to look at your work, spend your time honing your craft and cultivating real publishing credits. Not just spamming the online universe.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
Credibility is established over time; with consistent good work and persistence, it happens.
vjw
Matt
And the publishing industry's definition of "publication" also belongs to the industry. The Supreme Court has the last say about the law, and those who have the money in the industry have the last say about what is "published." Exactly the same principle is at work in both cases.
It's too bad, sometimes, that this is true. I recently published a book through a publisher I believed to be legitimate, only to quickly discover that the "legitimate" publishing industry considers them to have leprosy because they're a POD ("publish on demand") publisher. The one review I've been able to get for my book considers it to be possibly the beginning of the most important movement in Christianity since the Reformation, but what he is ignoring is the fact that my publisher is a leper. Oh, well...
Some people use the "free" route to get readers and then try to sell a new work to them. For example, a fairly popular zombie novel is supported by fans who were "hooked" by other zombie short stories posted for free on a website.
Do you think that approach works?
It's not about "official" approval. It's about standards. Standards don't exist becaus publishers try to "keep people down." They exist because readers expect them! Too often, writers make absolutely ridiculous comments like "So what if my spelling and grammar are bad? How's my story?" But if your spelling and grammar are so bad that I can't even enjoy reading your story, how am I suppose to answer that?
At the end of the day it boils down to this: You can't break the rules effectively until you first know what the rules are. And you learn the rules by getting involved in the industry in a proactive way. Not by deliberately fighting it at every turn like a rebel without a clue. Then once you understand the processes and the "whys" behind things, you can then make decisions on what you should and should not change.
Think about it this way---If I had never published a story before, never spoken with a publisher, never interacted with book reviewers, would my articles mean anything? I do a lot of things with my company that are different than the norm. But these differences are conscious decisions based on what I know, not just ignorance or avoidance of the rest of the world.
There is nothing wrong with posting an excerpt online. I do this myself. But the key points are: Don't give away something you want to get paid for and be picky about where you post.
This is so very true. If you're head-hopping all over the place in your first novel, publishers aren't going to be too excited to read the whole thing. "Head-hopping" is when you're in one character's head, then the next paragraph, another character, then back to the first one's point of view, then someone completely different... It's like watching a tennis match. Publishers want scenes to be from ONE person's perspective. So the entire scene of the heroine being held hostage at gunpoint, let's say, needs to be ONLY in the heroine's point of view. Don't hop to the gunman, then to the cop, then to the other hostages, then back to the heroine... It's confusing.
However, there are some authors out there who do this, I'm well aware. But they do it in such a way that it's not jarring. It flows. How can they get away with it? Because they know the "proper" way to break the rules. :P You can't just break them willy-nilly. You need a good reason, and you need to craft your words in such a way that the reader doesn't even notice your "rule-breaking."
~~Becka
Therein lies the problem. Until you've run through the wringer of traditional publishing, few people know whether or not they HAVE talent. I publish a free newsletter specifically devoted to self-publishing authors. I am a power poster at lulu.com. I do a lot of work helping self-published writers. Believe me, I know there are some incredibly talents self-publishers out there. But the successful ones are the ones who first took the time to understand the process and what a publisher actually does. Then they were able to take that knowledge and adjust it to their own goals. Writing is like any other profession. You have to understand it first. You can have all of the desire in the world, but until you go to medical school and finish your residency, you can't practice medicine! In essence, publishing is the same way. Until you actually take the time to understand what a publisher does, how they think, and otherwise appreciate WHY things are the way they are, then you are spinning your wheel.
Very well said. I am a project manager for Houghton Mifflin and Longman, and I totally agree with you. Right on!
I think you might have missed the fact that I am an independent publisher! And yes, there is a HUGE taboo in the industry about self-publishing. But it is NOT because of the process of self-publishing in and of itself. It is because of the attitude and behavior of many self-publishers. My point is that if you want to be taken seriously as an independent publisher, you need to understand the process and...to be blunt...how to behave like an adult! The underlying theme of this and many of my articles is that writers who decide to become independent publishers need to understand how to behave if they expect to get any respect.
In particular I want to respond to Martin's comments about new movements being started by "radicals." I hate to be the one to tell you this, but in almost every artistic movement that statement is two things: dead and wrong.
New art is not created by mavericks who come out of nowhere and buck all convention. See Julie's above statement about knowing the rules before you can break them. That's very important, because in almost every case it is people who already know the rules, who are trained and disciplined in their craft that take it in new directions. You have to know what came before before you can truly innovate. Take the work of Jackson Pollock, then take the work of his imitators. There's the world of difference between the two. The reason why is because Pollock was an artist. When he was throwing paint around he did so with an artist's eye, and that fact shows in his work. Imitators just throw paint around on a canvas without really understanding the principles behind it, and that shows in their work.
There's also the fact that innovation never happens in a vacuum. If it hadn't been for developments in psychology Realism never would have developed the way that it did.
For every revolution in the arts that occurs there's a dozen movements that die a quiet death because self-proclaimed radicals and geniuses thought they could buck conventions without even understanding what those conventions are, and as often as not they accomplish nothing more than duplicating something that has already been done.
As for credibility being in the eye of the beholder... only to a degree. Yes, there is plenty of crap that gets fed through any mill in order to feed the wheels of commerce. Even then I'd listen to those guys before I listened to someone who was self-published, because even if they put out crap they've walked the walk. They've slogged it out in the trenches with me and the rest of the dogfaces. Vs someone who's self-published having merely shelled out some quid and claiming that validates their work (one of the few exceptions I make is when the work is in fact exemplary, but is so specialized that it doesn't get published simply because there's no publisher willing to take a loss on it). It's this, as often as because of the dreaded wheels of commerce, that causes the radicals and "geniuses" to be ignored. Because us dogfaces who've walked the walk can smell the bullshit, and know that they have no idea what they're actually talking about. As I've said before, and will say again, the industry wants the radicals. It wants the geniuses. It wants the next big thing, because that right there is money in the bank. If I went to Julie with an idea that she was sure was going to make a lot of money she's not going to turn it down just because it's not like anything that came before it. She might turn it down on the grounds that I can be a pain in the ass to work with, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.
Anyway, the long and short of all this, is like I said, it's masters of the craft who are the real innovators, not a bunch of self-important folks who think that they're so brilliant they don't have to bother with rules.