Self/E-Publishing & the internet, Bukowski? (1 Viewer)

I imagine there are a lot of writers and here and obviously/definitely a lot of readers and I was just wondering what you all made of the latest literary revolution (this time technological) that is self publishing and e-publishing with sites like amazn, cre8 space etc. on the one hand would be authors are no longer entirely dependant on the big wig publishing houses, they now have more freedom & opportunity without answering to the cracking whip of the literary establishment for a piece of the action- on the other hand there is now an ocean of bad writing getting ever more polluted with further bad writing. something the publishers at least filtered a little. is it a wise investment or just fools gold?
also are these independent authors now being ripped off by sites such as amzn. is it power to the people or a scam?
do you perceive it as a liberating, artistic movement or is it just vanity publishing gone mad? I would be interested to hear your thoughts :)
Has anyone on here gone the self publishing route themselves? what were your experiences?

Also, finally, the big one - BUKOWSKI.

Would Bukowski, if the option were available to self publish online and reach a worldwide audience have hopped on the bandwagon and gone it alone? or would he have done it the old fashioned way and continued to seek publishers approval? would he have continued to work with/for Jon Martin? considering BSP's censorship of Buk's writing? Of course this last question is just speculation but I'm curious how you think he would have done with the internet at his disposal? considering that he achieved great success & notoriety without it.
 
Last edited:
No. Self-publishing, on the internet or in a vanity press (or even back in Buk's day with a mimeo machine) is foolish if you have a sense of integrity about the work. Buk's work ethic and his integrity (not to mention his wisdom) would have kept him from blogging, e-publishing, and all the rest. They had vanity press in his day. He could have done that. When the P.O. had him in for an inquiry about 'notes of a dirty old man' they asked him how many books did he have published, then they asked him how much he paid to have them published.
It would have been cheap and foolish then; it is cheap and foolish now.
 
Not sure what gives you such confidence in your answer. Bukowski had a computer before most of the people reading this did. The idea that he would have rejected any modern technology is probably incorrect and shortsighted.

And he did "self publish" in the early part of his career...maybe not directly, but by sharing the expense of printing some of his early books with the publishers.
 
No, nothing to do with the technology. Buk was on board way before most. I'm certain that he would enjoy and utilize much of what we have now. What I'm saying is that Buk would not have a blog to post his own poetry.
I know he did a bit of what some might consider self-publication like Man the Humping Guns etc. but he had already established the reputation in the littles by then.
Could you imagine Buk today sending Post Office out to a vanity press rather than to a third party publisher? And I know that having Black Sparrow was a whole different thing than finding an agent and shopping a manuscript. But a blog? Vanity press? Never.
 
Maybe it's trite, but Buk was a singular entity. Not to overstate, but he can't be separated from his time either
culturally or technologically. His use of the computer was like his use of a pencil and a typer: they were tools
plain and simple, and when a better one came along, he used it. It seems that the last 20 years or so have been
more about the "delivery of content" than than the quality. Everyone with a device can now be a published author
or half-assed auteur. There was a time when creating was actually inconvenient. But I'm an old guy, so fuck it.
 
I don't think it makes much sense speculating in what Buk would have done if ... (insert whatever you like), because you can usually find some "evidence" or indications to support your own theory but that does´nt prove anything since it's all hypothetical to start with. That said, it might be fun to think about what he would have done in various situations.
 
I don't necessarily agree that the two are the same, but one could make the argument that they both fall into the category of the author serving as editor without the "screening" effect of an independent editor deciding which works see the light of day and which do not; thus, in that regard, they are the same. This assumes that the blog is written by the author, of course.
 
true, but the idea that bukowski preferred publishing with actual publishers because of their editorial services seems kind of far fetched.

bukowski submitted everywhere and anywhere, because he wanted to get his work out there. that was what was important to him. i agree with skriumomalomaum that you can't speculate on what bukowski would have done, since he was so tied to his time and place, but the idea that he was above exposure-generating tools like publishing your own work on a blog doesn't mesh with how widely and incessantly he submitted poems to magazines and editors to be published.
 
I know he did a bit of what some might consider self-publication like Man the Humping Guns etc. but he had already established the reputation in the littles by then.
That's not what I'm talking about. He helped pay for some of the early chapbooks. That isn't "vanity" publishing by definition, but it's damn close.

But things have changed quite a bit, and self publishing is a 100% legit avenue now. I'm typing this from the New Media Expo in Las Vegas, and for the last three days all anyone has been talking about is "self publishing." That is the state of affairs from 2014. Period.
 
true, but the idea that bukowski preferred publishing with actual publishers because of their editorial services seems kind of far fetched...
Oh, I agree; at least for the most part. Buk's documented admiration of Marvin Malone's unwavering quality meter notwithstanding. I was, for the most part, speaking in general terms about blog "publishing" and vanity publishing, not just about Buk.
bukowski submitted everywhere and anywhere, because he wanted to get his work out there...but the idea that he was above exposure-generating tools like publishing your own work on a blog doesn't mesh with how widely and incessantly he submitted poems to magazines and editors to be published.
He was all about exposure; yes indeed. Somehow, I don't think he'd go the blog route. Just my gut.

...self publishing is a 100% legit avenue now.

To whom? In the context of what I want to read, I don't give a crap about writers legitimizing anything for their own interests (not to say that there isn't some good or even great material being self-published). I care about quality, despite some editorial efforts that have *cough* diminished quality. Point being, what does "legit" mean? To the unwashed masses? To quote Beethoven regarding the Schuppanzigh Quartet's commentary on his Grosse Fuge, "what do I care about you and your fucking fiddles?"^1

_________________________________
1 The Rough Guide to Classical Music
 
Last edited:
I just don't understand why self-publishing is such a dirty word to some people. In the comics world, it's how you get your start, no matter what. It could be either online or in print, but EVERYONE self-publishes. The biggest names in comics - Chris Ware, Charles Burns, Adrian Tomine, etc - they ALL self-published. It's not like it's some pathetic avenue for no-talent losers. Well, not exclusively.
 
It's not a dirty word to me, and I did edit my post (perhaps after you responded) to reflect that some self-published material may be good or even great. But it does open the flood gates for every hack out there with a buck or two to publish their tripe. I suppose I may never see the actual books unless I'm guided to them, but the internet stuff leaves much to be desired, for the most part. I suppose the ultimate question is: "Are you willing to suffer the onslaught of mediocre at best material to find the gems that may lie within?" So, it may not be a dirty word, but it does smack of self-gratuity. Let's face it; some of the most talented and least talented writers are prone to suffering from that. Myself included, although I fall smack-dab in the latter category.
 
I´ve read that most book reviewers in the newspapers don't review many self-published books because they think most of them are badly written and have´nt been edited.
 
Maybe Bukowski would cast a jaundiced eye over the world of e-self publishing, but cast adrift with no other options then yes, I think he would do it.He did after all as Jordan said submit work everywhere to get published - including porno mags ( I know he wasn't alone in that) as a means of getting his stories read.

While I don't think there will be a literary exodus into self publishing ( just yet, but who knows about 50 yrs from now) because it still doesn't have the cachet or validity of being published by a trusted, valued source, for the reader or the writer. There is a well established path historically of very famous authors and novels that were self published.
 
Last edited:
There are good writers that self publish and bad ones, just like there are good publishers and bad. Good restaurants and bad ones....

I'm waiting for the day that one of the BIG bestselling authors (think J.K. Rowling) decides to self-publish a novel and it will change the perception. Soon all authors will want to self publish and keep a bigger piece of the pie. I still think that a traditional publisher in the bestseller world brings more to the table and a big author self publishing would get a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

I do have to admit that my stance has softened on self-publishing. I have read some really good self published stuff. Most of it is NOT good (and not well designed to boot), but that is the case with most music, books, food, people.....

Bill
 
Perception is everything now isn't it? Whitman self-published Leaves of Grass -- perhaps the crowning achievement in American Poetry.

Why big names haven't jumped ship and decided to do it themselves, and keep the lion's share of the profits is a mystery to me. Maybe it's because distribution is more of the bottleneck now, and the distribution deals you can get (to avoid warehousing books, etc) aren't terribly lucrative (think print-on-demand arrangements with a place like Ingram -- hooked straight into Amazon). If self-publishers figured out a way to build reliable distribution outside of Amazon or even Small Press Distribution...then a big name could probably make the jump and succeed wildly. Right now there are a lot of obstacles -- many bookstores have rules designed to keep shelf space for self-pubbed books to a bare minimum.

But even if that happened, even if self-publishers had a level playing field...we're back to perceptions of self-publishing. And until it's widely accepted as a legitimate way to put out work...it will be dismissed -- by bookstores, by big publishing, and worse, by readers.
 
until [self-publishing is] widely accepted as a legitimate way to put out work...it will be dismissed -- by bookstores,
Who cares.
by big publishing,
Who cares.
and worse, by readers.
I'm not sure which readers are dismissing self-published books. It can't be the readers on Amazon who buy millions of dollars worth of "self-published" books every month (and are buying more every day)...
I don't give a crap about writers legitimizing anything for their own interests...
And I don't give a crap about readers with antiquated biases.

The notion that a stamp of approval from a major (or small) publisher is somehow a sign of quality is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If I follow that line of reasoning, every television show aired by a network is quality, and every song released by a major label is quality, and of course every movie that comes out of Hollywood must be quality too, right? I mean, they all made it through the GATE KEEPERS OF QUALITY. Seems a little absurd, doesn't it?

Maybe by quality you mean that things like grammar and spelling are correct. In which case publishers still don't guarantee quality, since I've paid good money for books from publishers big and small that are littered with errors. So I'm not sure the major publishers can even insure that kind of quality.

Anyway, as everyone is so fond of pointing out; yes, there is a mountain of self-published shit in the world.

It's almost (but not quite) as high as the mountain of shit published by traditional publishers.

I understand everyone is uneasy and finds the new way of things disturbing and unfamiliar. But ignoring or denigrating it isn't the answer to anything. Self-publishing is legitimate when you say it is. But you guys don't seem to believe it yet, so there's not much to say about it.
 
I´ve read that most book reviewers in the newspapers don't review many self-published books because they think most of them are badly written and have´nt been edited.
I think this may be because newspapers are like publishers-part of the old way of doing things and may have relationships with publishers.
If you have a tribe (stealing from Seth Godin) of 100 people that will buy your work be it book or piece of music you will make more money I bet than if you sell to 1000 maybe 10,000 by traditional means.
Reaching an audience has never been easier and if it's good enough people will give you financial or creative incentive to continue.
Heck most poets here have distributed and made a little among this tribe without being reviewed by a newspaper.
Perhaps the term self published should be expanded to "punk" published to allow collaboration to enter the discussion.
The shame of it all is there is no you tube equivalent for writing…….yet
 
I understand everyone is uneasy and finds the new way of things disturbing and unfamiliar. But ignoring or denigrating it isn't the answer to anything. Self-publishing is legitimate when you say it is. But you guys don't seem to believe it yet, so there's not much to say about it.
VERY well said, MJP. I can't find a thing with which to disagree.
 
If "self-published" has a perception problem, maybe we just need a new term.

If anyone asks about the publisher of any of my "self-published" work (which they never do, by the way, and which is kind of my point - they don't care), I'll call it independently published.

Traditional publishers are still useful, but only after you've established yourself. They don't do anything for a "new" or unestablished writer. So consequently I don't see any reason for a new or unestablished writer to grovel at their feet. For what?

There are so many outlets to exploit now that it's ridiculous. And you can exploit them yourself, or with very little help. And these new avenues are just as exploitable by you as they are by a multinational publishing house. In fact as an individual you have an advantage over corporations as far as "new media" is concerned.

The main difference between the past and now is that now you don't have to sell your cassettes or your books out of the trunk of your car, you can do it in other ways and reach infinitely more people. If you suck you will fail, and if you're good you can succeed. Independently.
 
I have no problem with self-publishing, and I think that in a few years the stigma will be pretty minimal. my problem is an ego thing; I like it when someone else wants to publish my work. it feeds my ego.

but that's my issue.
 
By the way, please join me for my YOU CAN SUCCEED IN THE MODERN WORLD seminar at an airport hotel near you! It's free to attend (required study materials are a modest $879.99). Call the toll free number now to reserve your ticket! Space is limited!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top