Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2020 7:41:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 12, 2020 12:22:44 GMT
I think that the article is in a way, coming as it does from Lulu, self-serving.
Here are a few quotes with comments...
There has been, since the earliest days of the print industry, a divide between the more expensive process of off-set printing and one-off or vanity printing. Off-set means printing thousands of copies at a go to be profitable, which means whoever put up that money has to be relatively sure those thousands of books will sell to make back their investment.
Referring to traditional publishing as "off-set" [sic] publishing is something that is hardly common terminology. And saying that offset printing has been the norm since "the earliest days of the print industry" is simply a confession of ignorance regarding the history of publishing. For one thing, the first offset press designed for printing on paper wasn't invented until 1903.
There appears to be some sort of stigma attached to the statement that "whoever put up that money [to publish a book] has to be relatively sure those thousands of books will sell to make back their investment."
The off-set publishers, who we now think of as traditional publishers, have a vested interest in the quality and retail success of every book they agree to print.
Of course they do. But then, so should even the self-published author.
Vanity publishing—which has largely been replaced by digital print-on-demand—offers authors a means to print books without the large upfront cost of an offset printer. And as digital technology improved, the options exploded.
Well, at least the author finally spelled "offset" correctly.
In any case, all too often avoiding the "large upfront cost" means avoiding things like editing and design.
The author goes on to make the argument that all issues of quality are entirely subjective...evidently to justify those authors who want to skip things like editing and design.
Since a large portion of self-published work is done entirely by the author, there is far less editing. Spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and poor syntax are bound to happen. We know it happens to professional writers too. It’s the army of editors working for the publisher that makes the difference.
What was often overlooked in the quality argument is that readers don’t actually care. They’ll read a self-published author if they enjoy the story. Yes, I think most can agree that a team of editors working with a talented storyteller can produce more timeless and important works. But publishing is a business. And the metric for success in the publishing business is, in the end, book sales.
Again, the author is being disingenuous. For instance, if attention to quality is really of little importance than publishers simply would not bother to invest thousands in editing, copyediting, etc.
The stigma that self-published works are lower quality emerges from the inherent bias of the existing traditional publishing industry.
No...it comes from decades of huge numbers of poorly-created books. If there is any stigma is the fault of careless authors, not industry bias.
If anyone can publish anything today, what are the offices full of editors, typesetters, designers, and publicists doing? The value of a traditionally published book is in the gatekeeping; the process that perfects the manuscript and packages it for sale.
And yet again, an attempt to justify skipping attention to quality and craftsmanship. But at the end, the author seems to contradict themselves by emphasizing the "gatekeeping" gauntlet that a traditionally published book must undergo. He is right in saying that this process adds value to a book.
Traditional publishing has to market on the quality of their books, hoping that readers will trust the vetting process. The self-published author relies on connections.
These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The article continues on in this self-serving vein...
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Sept 12, 2020 17:14:39 GMT
I think that the article is in a way, coming as it does from Lulu, self-serving.
And somewhat not too 'educated' on the subject (sorry Paul).Here are a few quotes with comments... There has been, since the earliest days of the print industry, a divide between the more expensive process of off-set printing and one-off or vanity printing. Off-set means printing thousands of copies at a go to be profitable, which means whoever put up that money has to be relatively sure those thousands of books will sell to make back their investment. Referring to traditional publishing as "off-set" [sic] publishing is something that is hardly common terminology. And saying that offset printing has been the norm since "the earliest days of the print industry" is simply a confession of ignorance regarding the history of publishing. For one thing, the first offset press designed for printing on paper wasn't invented until 1903.
I don't know what Paul is on about there. All manner of traditional printing methods have been used even for Vanity Publishing. One of the problems with old-school VP was tales of people ending up with boxes full of their book stacked in their garage or loft. It was part of the cost: at least 500 books for you to do what you wanted with! because from one to as many as you liked POD did not really become mainstream until this century.
There appears to be some sort of stigma attached to the statement that "whoever put up that money [to publish a book] has to be relatively sure those thousands of books will sell to make back their investment."
Vanity > excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. One could accuse all self-publishers with that, but there's a difference between spending $5 for a Lulu Proof to set the marketing ball in motion, and spending 10 grand, often with no ISBN and no Global Distribution.The off-set publishers, who we now think of as traditional publishers, have a vested interest in the quality and retail success of every book they agree to print. Of course they do. But then, so should even the self-published author.
The stigma of self-published books is nothing to do with the quality of the actual physical book. Self-publishers do not make their own books. Not often anyway! The blog is barking up the wrong tree. (Does it even mention e-books? which are not printed at all! I never got that far).Vanity publishing—which has largely been replaced by digital print-on-demand—offers authors a means to print books without the large upfront cost of an offset printer. And as digital technology improved, the options exploded. He does not state what is used instead. For many decades 'digital' has been used to create the commands for printing machines. I recall at least 30 years ago when a local newspaper installed PCs to design their papers on and the disposable printing 'plates' were created by that software. It was shut for months because all the typesetters blockaded the place. It spread to Fleetstreet when the Mirror Group adopted the technology. Nothing was printed for many months! It's even simpler today because the machines use laser and bubblejet printers, in our instance, controlled by our Print Ready PDFs, hence why it's possible to create just one book, without even stopping for the next PR PDF. The biggest and most expensive such machine now prints newspapers in London and the contents of a page can be changed even while the machine is running so fast you cannot read what's on them!Well, at least the author finally spelled "offset" correctly.In any case, all too often avoiding the "large upfront cost" means avoiding things like editing and design.
Indeed. Or the skill required to do it.The author goes on to make the argument that all issues of quality are entirely subjective...evidently to justify those authors who want to skip things like editing and design.
He does seem to go on about the physical book a lot. That's not where the stigma still lays. It's as if he is defending the production of Lulu books, not the contents.Since a large portion of self-published work is done entirely by the author, there is far less editing.
Does that make it right?!
Spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and poor syntax are bound to happen.
Self-Publishing is no excuse for that. SPed POD books are expensive, I would be a tad miffed if I bought one and it looks as if it had been written by an illiterate. To me, it would totally ruin what may be a decent story.
We know it happens to professional writers too.
In actual fact, many top selling writers are highly qualified in English. And is it normally not a Proofreader who looks for typos and other mistakes?
It’s the army of editors working for the publisher that makes the difference.
A publishing house usually sees a synopsis first. If that is riddled with mistakes I doubt it would get much further.
What was often overlooked in the quality argument is that readers don’t actually care. They’ll read a self-published author if they enjoy the story.
So he's suggesting that most readers are also semi-literate? What an insult. Is he using the likes of Shades of Grey as an example? It was said to be poorly written, not bad English, and everyone who read it said that. However, was that before Mills & Boons took it on and no doubt edited it? Or when it started off Self-published? I suspect the former.
Yes, I think most can agree that a team of editors working with a talented storyteller can produce more timeless and important works. But publishing is a business. And the metric for success in the publishing business is, in the end, book sales.Again, the author is being disingenuous. For instance, if attention to quality is really of little importance than publishers simply would not bother to invest thousands in editing, copyediting, etc.
Indeed. As I said above, publishing houses much prefer manuscripts they don't have to spend a lot of time on. Time is money.The stigma that self-published works are lower quality emerges from the inherent bias of the existing traditional publishing industry. No...it comes from decades of huge numbers of poorly-created books. If there is any stigma is the fault of careless authors, not industry bias.
Indeed. We have seen samples on Lulu itself. Some looking as if the person had never been to school. I wonder if that is why Lulu no longer have Previews? Thankfully other sites such as Amazon do.If anyone can publish anything today, what are the offices full of editors, typesetters, designers, and publicists doing?
Ensuring they produce excellent, and marketable books perhaps, that also give them a good reputation? And typesetters? What century is he in?
The value of a traditionally published book is in the gatekeeping; the process that perfects the manuscript and packages it for sale. And yet again, an attempt to justify skipping attention to quality and craftsmanship. But at the end, the author seems to contradict themselves by emphasizing the "gatekeeping" gauntlet that a traditionally published book must undergo. He is right in saying that this process adds value to a book.Traditional publishing has to market on the quality of their books, hoping that readers will trust the vetting process. The self-published author relies on connections.
I for one would not dream of creating a manuscript that is not far from perfect. So I assume I am a gatekeeper then, whatever that means. But his last statement is pure BS. What is the point of ISBNs then? Are Lulu going to get rid of those as well?These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The article continues on in this self-serving vein...
Yes, it's Lulu saying we don't care about the contents, just give us your dosh, to both those who use it, and those who buy the books. Another reason the forum was closed? We often advised people to go back and have another go, over and over, while Lulu does not care if the contents are rubbish, so did not like us to hint to people that it was! |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Sept 13, 2020 1:59:14 GMT
(I have no idea why some links are so long now!) www.huffpost.com/entry/self-publishing-book-indies_n_1522579?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9c2VsZi1wdWJsaXNoaW5nK3N0aWdtYSUzRisyMDIwJnFzPW4mZm9ybT1RQlJFJnNwPS0xJnBxPXNlbGYtcHVibGlzaGluZytzdGlnbWElM0YrMjAyMCZzYz0wLTI4JnNrPSZjdmlkPTVBNTI2Q0M5ODgxQjRDMEJBOTZBRDlBQTMwQTZERDA0&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJuG9s_CbzXrBKPu3pu9QChG3yHF_uPYxUkdovJHJKDRILWm0k-Sx_VABP3Z5cFh2qn6Htn1syvJHCl4nstv0yQWL8eMtoSGnS-hDYN4b_FWgnOMc0t0XRhDNh8dXhN1aJoML58BugjshiK4vCPLfKMTty46Gb60efu1X9FvDvadOk. Many such articles do not differentiate between those who self-publish by *contracting out to editors, proof-readers, cover designers, layout experts, and marketing experts and everything inbetween, all of which has cost them a pretty penny*, (some would say that spending so much dosh is Vanity Publishing, but not if that writer is already well established due to trad publishing, when that is the case, it's not much of a risk, and it is hardly 'Self') and those who just bang a file of pages through places like Lulu. They do not even differentiate when calling all self-publishers Independents. It's too general a term, when what it often means is some one or place that is not tied to some massive publishing house, and that could be an established writer who wants to go it alone and cancel any future contracts. Very often, also when they point to the success of some self-publishers, that success is often due to the above * but those who use them as examples, never mention that. So yes. Some 'self-published' books are as professionally turned out as any by a major publishing house. But most is often rubbish which puts readers off. Hence the stigma. BTW. Lulu often asked me to write blogs for them about self-publishing in general. Seems I was too honest about it, so they never published my input  |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 13, 2020 12:28:00 GMT
(I have no idea why some links are so long now!) www.huffpost.com/entry/self-publishing-book-indies_n_1522579?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9c2VsZi1wdWJsaXNoaW5nK3N0aWdtYSUzRisyMDIwJnFzPW4mZm9ybT1RQlJFJnNwPS0xJnBxPXNlbGYtcHVibGlzaGluZytzdGlnbWElM0YrMjAyMCZzYz0wLTI4JnNrPSZjdmlkPTVBNTI2Q0M5ODgxQjRDMEJBOTZBRDlBQTMwQTZERDA0&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJuG9s_CbzXrBKPu3pu9QChG3yHF_uPYxUkdovJHJKDRILWm0k-Sx_VABP3Z5cFh2qn6Htn1syvJHCl4nstv0yQWL8eMtoSGnS-hDYN4b_FWgnOMc0t0XRhDNh8dXhN1aJoML58BugjshiK4vCPLfKMTty46Gb60efu1X9FvDvadOk. Many such articles do not differentiate between those who self-publish by *contracting out to editors, proof-readers, cover designers, layout experts, and marketing experts and everything inbetween, all of which has cost them a pretty penny*, (some would say that spending so much dosh is RM FrPublishing, but not if that writer is already well established due to trad publishing, when that is the case, it's not much of a risk, and it is hardly 'Self') and those who just bang a file of pages through places like Lulu. RM My feeling has always been that if you take upon yourself the task of publishing your own work, there is very little difference between "self-publishing" and "vanity pubishing." "Vanity publishers" took on a very specific meaning, though, in referring specifically to a species of predatory businesses. But these still exist even in self-publishing, with the many companies that offer---for substantial fees---services ranging from editing and formatting to marketing and advertising. Sadly, I have never run across one of these that sounded wholly legitimate.They do not even differentiate when calling all self-publishers Independents. It's too general a term, when what it often means is some one or place that is not tied to some massive publishing house, and that could be an established writer who wants to go it alone and cancel any future contracts. RM "Independent publisher" used to mean something entirely different. It referred to a traditional publisher that was unaffiliated with any other company. For instance, Workman Publishing is the largest independent publisher in the US.Very often, also when they point to the success of some self-publishers, that success is often due to the above * but those who use them as examples, never mention that. RM My friend Lois Bujold is immensely successful at self-publishing her books as ebooks. But she started out establishing a solid reputation via traditional publishing...and all of her books eventually come out between covers from a traditional publishing house.So yes. Some 'self-published' books are as professionally turned out as any by a major publishing house. But most is often rubbish which puts readers off. Hence the stigma. RM And of course we all know why: those books are all too often thrown into print right off the word processor, with no independent vetting of any kind.
One of the problems is this: One can feel confident about the quality of any book bearing the brand of any major traditional publisher. But there is absolutely no such expectations for a self-published book: one simply has to take one's chances. The only possible exception might be the self-published book by an established author---Stephen King or my friend Lois, or some such---since there is the reasonable supposition that the book has been through some sort of independent editing process.BTW. Lulu often asked me to write blogs for them about self-publishing in general. Seems I was too honest about it, so they never published my input RM From the self-serving tone of the article Lulu posted, I would not have the slightest doubt about that. |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Sept 13, 2020 15:58:28 GMT
(I have no idea why some links are so long now!) www.huffpost.com/entry/self-publishing-book-indies_n_1522579?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9c2VsZi1wdWJsaXNoaW5nK3N0aWdtYSUzRisyMDIwJnFzPW4mZm9ybT1RQlJFJnNwPS0xJnBxPXNlbGYtcHVibGlzaGluZytzdGlnbWElM0YrMjAyMCZzYz0wLTI4JnNrPSZjdmlkPTVBNTI2Q0M5ODgxQjRDMEJBOTZBRDlBQTMwQTZERDA0&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJuG9s_CbzXrBKPu3pu9QChG3yHF_uPYxUkdovJHJKDRILWm0k-Sx_VABP3Z5cFh2qn6Htn1syvJHCl4nstv0yQWL8eMtoSGnS-hDYN4b_FWgnOMc0t0XRhDNh8dXhN1aJoML58BugjshiK4vCPLfKMTty46Gb60efu1X9FvDvadOk. Many such articles do not differentiate between those who self-publish by *contracting out to editors, proof-readers, cover designers, layout experts, and marketing experts and everything inbetween, all of which has cost them a pretty penny*, (some would say that spending so much dosh is RM FrPublishing, but not if that writer is already well established due to trad publishing, when that is the case, it's not much of a risk, and it is hardly 'Self') and those who just bang a file of pages through places like Lulu. RM My feeling has always been that if you take upon yourself the task of publishing your own work, there is very little difference between "self-publishing" and "vanity pubishing."
Really, the term Vanity Publishing stems from pre-pod, so the contract had to include boxes full of books, rarely with ISBNs or any form of retailing in the deal. Often it cost $10,000, and those who took the money never cared about the contents or even looked at it. Spending that sort of money on what could perhaps be a rubbish story, is true Vanity if the writer does not realise how crap it is. Spending a few pounds on a Lulu Proof is not really at that level of vanity. But it could be a level of delusion.
"Vanity publishers" took on a very specific meaning, though, in referring specifically to a species of predatory businesses.
Oh indeed. When referring to the sharks who offered the services. Although I suppose yer pays yer money and takes yer chance. Many were just places that offered to turn a manuscript in to a book, nothing more. And pre-file, turning a pile of snail-mailed pages in to a book is not an easy or fast task.
But these still exist even in self-publishing, with the many companies that offer---for substantial fees---services ranging from editing and formatting
Often all they do nowadays is run the file through Word, with all its bells and whistles checkers turned on. It's money for old rope.
to marketing and advertising.
Often all that entails is registering with a searchengine, for free. Or just giving it an ISBN. Some actually just publish them through Lulu with Lulu's free ISBNs and Storefront.
Sadly, I have never run across one of these that sounded wholly legitimate.
Very true.They do not even differentiate when calling all self-publishers Independents. It's too general a term, when what it often means is some one or place that is not tied to some massive publishing house, and that could be an established writer who wants to go it alone and cancel any future contracts. RM "Independent publisher" used to mean something entirely different. It referred to a traditional publisher that was unaffiliated with any other company. For instance, Workman Publishing is the largest independent publisher in the US.
Yup. Not an Imprint in other words. I am not sure how many major publishing houses there are, but often many other publishing house names belong to them.Very often, also when they point to the success of some self-publishers, that success is often due to the above * but those who use them as examples, never mention that. RM My friend Lois Bujold is immensely successful at self-publishing her books as ebooks. But she started out establishing a solid reputation via traditional publishing...and all of her books eventually come out between covers from a traditional publishing house.
I often say it does pay to attract the attention of the trads. Then they often approach you, not the other way around.So yes. Some 'self-published' books are as professionally turned out as any by a major publishing house. But most is often rubbish which puts readers off. Hence the stigma. RM And of course we all know why: those books are all too often thrown into print right off the word processor, with no independent vetting of any kind.
Impatience often plays a part also. It's also a fact that the pro services do not come cheap, and few self-publishers can afford them.
One of the problems is this: One can feel confident about the quality of any book bearing the brand of any major traditional publisher. But there is absolutely no such expectations for a self-published book: one simply has to take one's chances.
With the availability of Previews that chance does not have to be great.
The only possible exception might be the self-published book by an established author---Stephen King or my friend Lois, or some such---since there is the reasonable supposition that the book has been through some sort of independent editing process.
I have to admit that I go for writers I know. Occasionally one of my sons will buy me a book by someone I have never heard of, hoping that I like it. 85% of the time I often do! But none are self-published in any meaning of the term.BTW. Lulu often asked me to write blogs for them about self-publishing in general. Seems I was too honest about it, so they never published my input RM From the self-serving tone of the article Lulu posted, I would not have the slightest doubt about that.
I used to write a lot of reviews for magazines. Often the lawyers of the companies and products reviewed were not too pleased with the contents. Often it was "why were we not shown this before publication?" Errmm. But if a review is provable to be truthful there's nowt they can do about it. Apart from withhold advertising. But such reviews did increase circulation.
On the other foot. When I was a product designer, one could always get a better review if you lent the reviewer the product for at least a weekend, even took them for dinner, even put them up in hotel. Paid for a full-page advert. Just goes to show, not all reviews can be trusted. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Sept 13, 2020 17:22:30 GMT
Yes, there is a stigma.
Months ago I mentioned to an acquaintance a book which I had read and in the conversation I had mentioned that it had come from Lulu. He asked what Lulu was and I said that it was a distributor of self-published books. He said, "Oh yeah, yeah. Obviously a failed author." The book was dismissed offhand.
Yes, there is a stigma.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Sept 13, 2020 18:00:25 GMT
The stigma is in a way understandable. It's always assumed that if a potential book is worthy then it will be taken up by a publishing house. But there's many an example of books that became top sellers that were rejected by many for years. Many writers give up due to that. I mean, how long is considered too long to keep trying? Note that often those writers had agents. How long before they give up? They have to eat.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Sept 13, 2020 20:39:06 GMT
The thought of printing a manuscript and sending it to some publishing house in New York or elsewhere to be put into the hands of strangers never even crossed my little walnut brain. Self-publishing just seemed so much easier and quicker to me. Perhaps I got it all wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Sept 13, 2020 23:57:32 GMT
The thought of printing a manuscript and sending it to some publishing house in New York or elsewhere to be put into the hands of strangers never even crossed my little walnut brain. Self-publishing just seemed so much easier and quicker to me. Perhaps I got it all wrong.
So indeed, self-publishing is the easy way. Sort of. Going that way does not give you the advantage of all the experts publishers employ, unless you yourself contract out, and why so much SP stuff is not too good, because they don't.
But, if going the SP way would have cost you anything up to 10 grand, would you have bothered? |
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Sept 14, 2020 1:15:53 GMT
No. I wouldn't.
Not without a guaranteed return on the investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 14, 2020 11:57:19 GMT
The stigma is in a way understandable. It's always assumed that if a potential book is worthy then it will be taken up by a publishing house. But there's many an example of books that became top sellers that were rejected by many for years. Many writers give up due to that. I mean, how long is considered too long to keep trying? Note that often those writers had agents. How long before they give up? They have to eat. It's true that many books were initially rejected---often many times---before being finally published, including books that went on to become best-sellers. The lesson to be taken from this is not that one should immediately turn to self-publishing but to persevere, as the authors of those books did. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 14, 2020 12:07:23 GMT
The thought of printing a manuscript and sending it to some publishing house in New York or elsewhere to be put into the hands of strangers never even crossed my little walnut brain. Self-publishing just seemed so much easier and quicker to me. Perhaps I got it all wrong. Well, here are a few things to think about... Few, if any, publishing houses want to see a complete MS (otherwise they would be buried under reams of paper). Most want to initially see only an outline and perhaps the first chapter or chapters. This is perfectly reasonable since if an author can't write something readable for 50 pages the remaining 200 are probably not going to be much better. Having your book looked at by strangers is far from a bad thing, especially when those strangers are seasoned experts in writing, editing and publishing. While a rejection will rarely be accompanied by a critique, if your book is accepted it will go through a vetting process of immense value. Which leads to the final comment, which is that self-publishing usually means self-editing and I don't think that any author, no matter how experienced, is objective enough to edit their own work. The process of independent, objective editing is something that far too many self-published books lack---either because the author cannot afford it or because they simply ignore it---with the result that self-publishing has the stigma it has today. This isn't to say that every book needs to be commercially published. There are many for which self-publishing is ideal. Books of a special interest, for instance, where the audience might be very small. Family or local histories would be one example of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 14, 2020 12:11:48 GMT
The thought of printing a manuscript and sending it to some publishing house in New York or elsewhere to be put into the hands of strangers never even crossed my little walnut brain. Self-publishing just seemed so much easier and quicker to me. Perhaps I got it all wrong.
So indeed, self-publishing is the easy way. Sort of. Going that way does not give you the advantage of all the experts publishers employ, unless you yourself contract out, and why so much SP stuff is not too good, because they don't.
But, if going the SP way would have cost you anything up to 10 grand, would you have bothered?Many people think that one simply goes out and hires an agent. The truth is that finding an agent involves exactly the same process as finding a publisher. You have to submit your work and the agent has to accept it. Because most agencies are very small...many consist of just a single person...they have to necessarily be much more selective than a publisher---making it more difficult, in many ways, than approaching a publisher directly. And the latter course is more possible than many think. Not every publisher will accept only agented submissions. Even some of the top traditional publishers are glad to see unsolicited submissions. Writer's Guide is a good source of information regarding who does and does not accept unagented work. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Sept 14, 2020 12:15:03 GMT
No. I wouldn't. Not without a guaranteed return on the investment. Exactly. But a publisher will take on a book without any guarantees. Yet that book will receive professional editing, copy editing, proofreading, design, art, marketing and advertising (to say nothing of the advance the author receives). The gamble may pay off and the book sells well enough to make back that investment and plus some...or it may go directly to the remainder tables at WalMart and the publisher has to write it off as a loss. A publisher can do this (though they hate to, of course, because they publish so many books among which are successful ones. In fact, it is the successful books that enable publishers to take chances on new, untested writers. |
|
