General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#2 |
|
Shoot hard for real press. Only do independent press if you get shot down hard everywhere else.
Especially if you aren't doing SF. Some of this is that the main sellers of independents are independent booksellers which are sort of rare. Also because it doesn't seem to help selling future books to the major publishers (from what I have seen). Despite the fact that BAEN is sort of independent, it might have enough strength now to be considered differently (but it does SF). JM |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to apply to the more selective but 'better' publishers first? |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Is it genre fiction? There are a number of small and medium-sized imprints for the big publishing houses that specialize in one or two different genres, i.e. sci-fi, classic fantasy, modern/urban fantasy, etc. That's how the good ladywife got published, she sought out a small specialized imprint of one of the big publishers, the imprint having just one editor who picks the manuscripts she wants to publish.
If you have a more general fiction book on hand, I don't know what to tell ya, but I gotta say that I find it rather suspicious that you pay them to publish. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
I will also volunteer to read it if you don't publish it (and yeah, congrats!).
BTW, I do know of one person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Watts) who didn't do so well with the standard publishing house but then has had good success with publishing on the internet (Creative Commons license). He was nominated for a Hugo in 2007. Probably he would suggest doing that over doing a very small time publishing (http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=213). JM |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Paying to be published is pathetic, period. It is a joke that anyone with a brain cell would tell you to do that for any reason. This reminds me of those honor societies that would ask for an "application," then "accept" you and then ask for "money" as a membership fee. The only reason I'd pay to get something "published" is if it was pictures of my opponents in flagrante delincto. Get published for real or keep flipping pizzas, douchebag.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
After all, I can always ignore it. In the publishing industry, if you have a book good enough to be published, someone will publish it without asking for money from you. Full stop. Don't pay anyone, ever, to publish something for you, unless you really just love seeing your book in print and don't care about selling it at all [and don't expect any of the money back]. I suggest getting some feedback on it from a writers' forum (there are lots), and if it's good enough to publish, finding an agent. Also, see if you can write a short story or two based on it [if you can either fashion the opening chapter(s) into a short story, or edit a large portion into a novella or something; or just write a story in the 'universe' with some of the characters] and get that published in a zine/magazine first. That will make it much, much easier to get published. Whatever you do, don't ask John Scalzi to read your book. ![]() Also, I'd be more than happy to read your book if you have a pdf version [and give suggestions, or not, as you prefer] ![]() Finally - have you read The Magicians by Lev Grossman? That's the most recent big book in the vague category of 'theological fantasy' that I've seen, and quite interesting in its take on things [though probably not as theological as yours will be, I'm guessing; it's really only vaguely in the category due to its links to Narnia]. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
Jon, did you read my edit? It's not theological fantasy per se in that there's little theology in it, but it's in the genre, in the sense that it's going to be grouped together with "Narnia-type" fantasy due to the lack of books in the genre. Unless Elok's book is highly theological and very little fantasy, publishers and booksellers will group them together.
And yes, Pullmans' books would also be theological fantasy (in that sense) ... |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
I think that would be rather overly specific of a category
![]() Remember, bookstores and publishers group books by 'How can we sell these', not by 'What are these'? The Magicians is being billed as Narnia-esque, even though it's not at all related beyond the author's obvious fascination with Narnia. Pullman similarly is sometimes linked even though it's sort of the anti-Narnia; they both sort of involve God thus they're linked. |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
in the sense that it's going to be grouped together with "Narnia-type" fantasy due to the lack of books in the genre. Narnia books would sell better along with Christian Apologetics, and alongside anything with CS Lewis, Tolkein, Chesterton. Pullman would go right in hand with Dawkins, Dan Brown and other works of fiction.
You don't put Narnia together with 'anti-Narnia' if you hope to sell either. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|