Comments on: Thoughts on Traditionally Published Authors & E-publishing

By: Nancy Madlin

Nancy Madlin — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 05:41:41 +0000

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this; it was helpful to hear your perspective on this topic of interest to me…

I personally like e-books for what they are — less than a traditional book, yet a wonderfully fast and accessible way to give or receive useful information. When I get into a relationship with a blogger or expert, I enjoy relating to their e-books also because they are so accessible and more affordable than a traditional book.

Speaking of which, it would be so nice for me if you would also consider doing teleseminars!

By: christinakatz

christinakatz — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:10:29 +0000

It all depends on who has the rights. An author either has the rights or doesn't. It's typically pretty black and white.

By: christinakatz

christinakatz — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:09:22 +0000

I think you are right, Kathleen. I also think it's a good idea to keep a level head about these things. We can't all be J.A. Konrath.

By: Colette

Colette — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:18:25 +0000

First, congrats on publishing your e-book.

Thanks for the discussion on e-books. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

I like your distinction between backlists and backlogs. I think it does make sense for writers to 'self-publish' with an e-book for certain types of works -- that might be their backlog, or it might be smaller pieces, or pieces used to build towards something bigger. I am starting to think that e-books might be a way to build a stronger platform.

I'm really curious to see how you feel about it in a few months.

By: Kathleen McDade

Kathleen McDade — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:03:47 +0000

I saw this in my feed reader and wondered whether you'd been reading Konrath. Yes, I think you were very clear, and it sounds like e-publishing may be a very good opportunity for writers. However, I think (at least right now) that it's going to work best for already-established authors, rather than previously unpublished or lesser-known authors.

By: Jenn

Jenn — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:59:08 +0000

Your distinction between “backlist” and “backlog” was incredibly helpful, Christina. All this talk in the blogosphere of authors publishing their rights-reverted backlists has given me a push to dig out my old book contracts and find out whether I can do the same (though I do find it daunting). I'm also curious as to whether, should an author publish a new book and that publisher want to bring out his or her backlist, having e-pubbed in the interim would be a stumbling block.

By: christinakatz

christinakatz — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:29:10 +0000

Thanks for your input and support, Cynthia. I like what you said about viewing e-publishing as a necessary evil. I think the way to make anything that publishers do or can do seem less exclusionary (is that a word?) is to give it a try for ourselves. This is the dangerous opportunity of the day. Everyone involved in publishing has new opportunities, and it just depends on how wisely we handle the opportunities available to us.

By: Cynthia Schuerr

Cynthia Schuerr — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:47:11 +0000

Christina, you have a wonderful idea here. I personally am not a fan of the e-publishing business, but I understand that it is a necessary evil to be able to survive as a writer and get your work out there to the public. Especially, someone as yourself, with all the information that you have brought to us in the past decade.

I'm not happy that publishers can e-publish their 'backlist'. It doesn't seem fair to the author, but again, I suppose necessary to stay in business. I think you explained the difference between publisher's backlist and author's backlist, very well. I agree that using the word 'backlog' instead of 'backlist' to differentiate the two is a great idea. Clears it up, nicely.