Publishing Options: Pros and Cons

Recently a friend asked me if I could explain the "differences" between having a book published with a traditional publishing house and self-publishing that same book.

Having done both, I thought I would offer some very basic information that might be helpful to those who have no experience with either. I apologize if this seems over-simplified. Please feel free to leave comments!

Published by Sylvan Dell Publishing

TRADITIONAL PUBLISHING

Cons: 
(1) You have to get a publisher to accept your manuscript. This can take years.
(2) Before acceptance, a publisher may require you to make changes to your manuscript that you are reluctant to make.
(3) After publication, the publisher keeps a percentage of the money earn on your book.
(4) If you receive an advance against royalties and your book does not earn back that amount of money, a publisher might require you to pay that money back to them.

Published by Globe Pequot Press

Pros:
(1) The publishing house distributes and markets your book to a much wider audience than you could do yourself. A big publisher might also pay your way to events and arrange paid appearances for you.
(2) When your manuscript is accepted, you typically get an advance against royalties (ranging from as little as $500 to as much as $10,000 for one book).
(3) Your book benefits from professional editing provided by the publishing house.
(4) If your book requires illustrations, the publisher hires an illustrator, choosing from a huge number of qualified artists.
(5) Once your book has earned back its advance, you continue to earn royalties (usually 10% and up, depending on how many copies the book sells).
(6) Being published by a traditional publisher gets your book into libraries, schools, and other places that do not accept self-published books. There is a certain "level of respect" that comes with being traditionally published. Your book has been vetted by professionals. A publisher has put money behind it. This matters to many consumers, especially schools and libraries.

SELF-PUBLISHING

Self-Published by Scotti Cohn and Christina Wald

Cons:
(1) You pay to have the book published. This can be quite expensive, especially if you also elect to hire an illustrator, editor, or proofreader.
(2) If your book requires illustrations, you either have to do them yourself or get someone else to do them. This could be expensive, depending on what you decide to do.
(3) You market and distribute the book as best you can, at your own expense. If you decide to take your book to an event, you may have to pay vendor fees and, of course, cover your own expenses.
(4) You may have trouble getting your book into libraries, schools, and other places that do not accept self-published books. This reduces your reading base, which can impact sales.

Pros:
(1) You can publish your book as soon as you are ready to publish it. No submission process.
(2) You have complete control over what goes into the book and how it is presented.
(3) You get to keep most (if not all) of the proceeds from sales.

I put this together pretty quickly, but I think I covered the most important aspects of the topic. However, I welcome any thoughts and comments from blog readers!

The Sentence Fragment Thing

Okay, yes, I am ranting about sentence fragments AGAIN, just like I did back _in July_. Clearly the author of the self-published novel I am currently reading missed that blog post. What? You say he never saw it because he is one of the millions who never read this blog? Oh. I see.

But you are reading this right now, so while I've got you, I'm going to take another opportunity to air my point of view.

In July, I posted links to several sites where you could read about sentence fragments. Here they are:

• Purdue Owl Online Writing Lab
• The Sentence Fragment
• UNC Writing Center

As I mentioned in July, I believe sentence fragments can be effective tools in a piece of writing, for example, when the writer wants to emphasize or dramatize something. The sentence fragment acts like a "punch line" in a joke. The reader instinctively notices it because "it's not right" (not a complete sentence), and the message hits home.

Another reason a writer might deliberately use sentence fragments is to build tension.

All of this refers to narrative, not dialogue or character thoughts. We all speak and think in sentence fragments. I have no problem with that.

Let's get back to the narrative part of a piece. A sentence needs to have two things: a subject and a predicate. The subject is usually a noun (with or without modifers). The predicate needs to include a verb in its basic form: past, present, or future. The sentence also needs to express a complete thought.

The bottom line here is that a sentence fragment cannot stand alone. To the ear, it *sounds* like it is unfinished, like something more is needed to complete the statement. For example, here is a sentence fragment: birds flying south for the winter. This could be the title of a painting, no problem. However, it is not a sentence. To make it a sentence, you could write "Birds fly south for the winter" or "Birds are flying south for the winter" or "Birds were flying south for the winter" or "Birds flew south for the winter." You could also write "He saw birds flying south for the winter." But birds flying south for the winter cannot stand alone as a sentence. It is a sentence fragment.

I do not consider myself some kind of grammar "purist." I simply think authors should realize the effects their wording choices have on readers. There may come a time when sentence fragments are so commonly used in writing that nobody notices any longer. I don't think that time has arrived yet.

Present? Past? Make up your mind!

"With one hand she takes the ice cream cone, and with the other, she grabbed her purse."

What's wrong with this sentence?

If you say, "nothing," then I have a feeling you are not going to get the point of this blog post. If you say "present and past tense are both used in the same sentence for no apparent reason" -- BINGO! You got it.

"Take" is present tense; "grabbed" is past tense. I suppose it is possible that I am the only reader in the world who is confused/bothered/annoyed by this, but I doubt it. Even if you don't know the names of all the tenses and their uses in English, the above sentence very likely interrupts the flow for you, causing you to mentally stumble.

As a writer, you don't want your readers to stumble. If you are writing fiction, you don't want to interrupt the flow of your story or pull the reader out of the mood you're trying to create. Although there may be individuals who don't notice tense changes, you are really limiting your potential fan base if you play fast and loose with tense.

I am currently reading a sample from a self-published novel in which the writer jumps back and forth from present to past tense within scenes, within paragraphs, and even within sentences. I have whiplash by the time I get to the bottom of a page. There is a very good chance that I will not keep reading this book even though the story line and characters are compelling. It just isn't worth being jerked around like that.

There are reasons for using present tense and reasons for using past tense. In order to decide which is best for a particular piece you are writing, you can try both. But in the final product, please be consistent. Choose one and stick with it.

Oh -- and as Linda points out below in her Comment -- that second comma needs to go. I am usually much better these days about not overusing commas, but sometimes old habits are hard to break!