7 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t worry. The Passive Voice is a place for Self-Publishing/E-book evangelism. I’ve read so many articles there that are factually inaccurate.
    In this case I think he just posted something someone found inflammatory, i.e. clickbait.

    I do find it interesting though that a guy claiming to be a contract lawyer looking into working with author contracts has so little respect for copyright. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that just reposting like that is breach of copyright. He could use Fair Use as a defence, but as I understand it he would at least have to comment on what he posts to do that.

  2. I steer clear of any radical thinkers no matter what side they are on. I hope they can be reasonable and let this go. It seems like the only ones allowed to have an opinion is them! But maybe something good will come of it, they say any press is good press 🙂 Let me know if the pitchfork mob arrives. I’m pretty good with a bow

  3. Yeah, The Passive Voice can be a bit of a zoo sometimes, but even though the people there can be pretty vitriolic toward big publishing and its apologists, I do think that they mean well when it comes to writers and authors, no matter how they’re published. Also, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to call self-publishing a “tribe.” Within self-publishing, there is a multiplicity of different views, approaches, genres, norms, taboos, etc. As a self-published indie writer, some of the most vitriolic debates I’ve gotten into have been with other indie writers who subscribe to a different school of self-publishing.

    If it seems like a strange world where little makes sense or sounds familiar, that’s probably because it’s an entirely different paradigm from the one that you’re used to. Within that paradigm, there’s a lot of different tribes and factions, but the thing they have in common is that their worldview of publishing–our worldview of publishing–is so different as to be almost incompatible. The thing about paradigms, though, is that they can shift, and sometimes in ways that are quite surprising. If you’d told me five years ago that today I’d be self-published, I would have laughed my head off at you. If you’d told me that I’d be making a living today without a publisher, I would have sobered up and made the transition a hell of a lot sooner.

    Honestly, I don’t find this distinction between “self-published” and “traditionally published” to be very useful. In fact, I find it distracting at best, and needlessly destructive at worst. However we’re published, we’re all still writers. Our goals and our paths may be different, but there’s nothing to be gained by dividing ourselves into “tribes” and pitting ourselves against each other. If some of us are more evangelical about one path than another, it’s often because we’ve found that path to work so much better than the others that we can’t help but encourage everyone to try it.

    That’s certainly the case with me, at least. The best thing I ever did for my career was self-publish. It was a huge paradigm shift, but it was totally worth it, because it helped me to accomplish my goal: to make a living telling stories that I love. So please don’t see us as an enemy tribe, even if some of us can be a bit tribal at times. Self-publishing is a very big tent, and there’s plenty of room beneath it for everyone.

    • I think that whatever floats your boat. I like the support one gets from a professional editor, etc. I also don’t have the time to pursue marketing efforts to the extent that a publisher might be able to.

      • Leslie

        You can self-publish and use a professional editor. There are some excellent free-lance ones. (This also applies to cover designers and copy editors and marketers. Yes, you pay for them, but you’re paying for them with a traditional publisher, too.) Just pointing that out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.