A few questions.

Hey there!,


I got a few questions I have been wondering about for a while.


1. Can I sell my book on both mediums hardback and digital?

2. Have there been any popular titles that have been sold thru LuLu.com?

3. I know its a FAR out there question but. If a book gets really popular will LuLu.com try to short change you if someone in Hollywood would want to make a movie from it? Like Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter ect.

4. Can A person publish there book on here, but also with another publishing company or are they contracted in to just LuLu?

There are more but I forgot what they were.
Also I do have a book coming but since my grammar is horrible my friends have been reading it thru and fixing it before I publish.

Comments


  • TheWhiteRose000 wrote:

    Hey there!,


    I got a few questions I have been wondering about for a while.


    1. Can I sell my book on both mediums hardback and digital?

     

    Yes. And paperback, too.

    2. Have there been any popular titles that have been sold thru LuLu.com?

    3. I know its a FAR out there question but. If a book gets really popular will LuLu.com try to short change you if someone in Hollywood would want to make a movie from it? Like Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter ect.

     

    You own all the rights to your book, including the copyright. You are also the publisher of your book, not Lulu. If anyone were to want to make a movie of your book, they would have to deal directly with you or someone designated to represent you.

    4. Can A person publish there book on here, but also with another publishing company or are they contracted in to just LuLu?

     

    Lulu is not a publishing company. You are the publisher of your book. It belongs to you: you can do anything you want with it.

    I'm not too sure what you might have in mind with the question, however. If you plan to take your book to a traditional publisher, having it previously published anywhere (including self-publishing) could prove to be an impediment. If you think your book might be of interest to a traditional publisher it would be better to start there and then turn to self-publishing if you don't get any takers.

    There are more but I forgot what they were.
    Also I do have a book coming but since my grammar is horrible my friends have been reading it thru and fixing it before I publish.

     

    Good idea! I wish more people would do that!


     

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/

  • TheWhiteRose000 wrote:


    There are more but I forgot what they were.
    Also I do have a book coming but since my grammar is horrible my friends have been reading it thru and fixing it before I publish.


    Hire a proofreader! I cannot stress it too strongly so I will say it again and put it in capitals - HIRE A PROOF READER! Unless your friends are professional proofreaders and editors they will NEVER find the enough of your mistakes to make your manuscript readable.The things that they WILL miss will include: apostrophe misuse and other punctuation, changes in tense, words spelt correctly but out of context, missing words in a sentence like 'it', 'the' or 'of'. We all suffer from word blindness and our brains will correct what our eyes see.

     

    My wife reads my manuscripts 4 or five times and we go through them paragraph by paragraph before I hand them over to Nat and they STILL come back covered in corrections and suggestions. Then we go through them again before I publish.

  • No money to hire a proof-reader so a college grad and a professor who writes Microsoft tech books will have to do for me.

    XD


  • TheWhiteRose000 wrote:

    No money to hire a proof-reader so a college grad and a professor who writes Microsoft tech books will have to do for me.

    XD


    I cannot afford a full professional proofreading surface either. Try studentgems.com/. I put an advert up for a proofreader and had to pull the it after 3 days because I got so many replies. Everyone wins because I got a service that is worth far more than I am paying and Nat gets real world experience to put on her CV and does not have to pull pints in a seedy pub to supplement her student loan.

     

  • Ron has covered points one, three, and four very efficiently.

     

    Regarding self-published books and popularity, I am given to understand that "Fifty Shades" was originally self-published and possibly through Lulu; Also, I believe that "The Martian" by Andy Weir (Now a Major Motion Picture! <-- Sorry, had to do that...) was originally self-published.

     

    If I were a publisher in the old traditional way, and if I were looking for good books to publish in the old traditional way, I would definitely have my eye on places like Lulu, though admittedly, it can be difficult to winnow the wheat from the chaff.


  • Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Ron has covered points one, three, and four very efficiently.

     

    Regarding self-published books and popularity, I am given to understand that "Fifty Shades" was originally self-published and possibly through Lulu; Also, I believe that "The Martian" by Andy Weir (Now a Major Motion Picture! <-- Sorry, had to do that...) was originally self-published.

     

    If I were a publisher in the old traditional way, and if I were looking for good books to publish in the old traditional way, I would definitely have my eye on places like Lulu, though admittedly, it can be difficult to winnow the wheat from the chaff.


    There is no need for a traditional publisher to wade through 8 point 2 billion tons of worthless books. They only need to find the handful that have had extraordinary sales...and that is not difficult to discover.

     

    But even books found that way account for only a very small fraction of traditionally published novels. By far the majority are still submitted directly to the publishers, whether through an agent or by the author themselves (and, contrary to the general belief, a great many traditional publishers, large and small, welcome unsolicited works from first-time authors).

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • I run a gaming organization that reviews games and helps better the world by changing the hearts of men

     

    How?!

  • Self-publishing sites do not examine what's created via them for any kind of quality. The Vanity publishing sites that still exist also do not, but can take £1000s off people, but that may include proofreading, but never if the book is saleable, and few offer Distribution, free or otherwise, just a few sample books.

     

    Self-publishing still has a bad name, but some spend a lot of money on doing so. Not via Vanity publishing places, but by hiring the type of people who work for traditional publishing houses. It's often that type of person who does gain some kind of success and who is often given as an example of how self-publishing can work. But in my view, they don't really count if they have chucked £20,000 at a project, have an agent, and a PR person. It's also no real guarantee that their books are any good! So that still does not help the bad reputation self-publishing still has.

     

    But, some famous names are starting to ditch their traditional publishing houses and going independent because modern tech allows them to. The problem with that is it's not obvious they are self-published, so it still may not help remove the stigma of self-publishing. Shame really.

     

     


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Self-publishing sites do not examine what's created via them for any kind of quality. The Vanity publishing sites that still exist also do not, but can take £1000s off people, but that may include proofreading, but never if the book is saleable, and few offer Distribution, free or otherwise, just a few sample books.

     

    Self-publishing still has a bad name, but some spend a lot of money on doing so. Not via Vanity publishing places, but by hiring the type of people who work for traditional publishing houses. It's often that type of person who does gain some kind of success and who is often given as an example of how self-publishing can work. But in my view, they don't really count if they have chucked £20,000 at a project, have an agent, and a PR person. It's also no real guarantee that their books are any good! So that still does not help the bad reputation self-publishing still has.

     

    Exactly! 

     

    You bring up two major problems. The first is that in order to have a self-published book become as successful as a traditionally published one, the author has to do pretty much everything the traditional publisher would---and bear all the expenses for that himself. He then has to make back all of that investment before he earns a penny from his books. And one has to also factor in the time spent in doing all of this, which includes promoting the book...time that could be spent writing.

     

    The second is that readers know that a traditionally published book has run a gauntlet of editors, copy editors, proofreaders, etc., meaning that they have some guarantee of quality.

     

    But, some famous names are starting to ditch their traditional publishing houses and going independent because modern tech allows them to. The problem with that is it's not obvious they are self-published, so it still may not help remove the stigma of self-publishing. Shame really.

     

    That's true about a number of famous authors---in fact, I know two or three that have been doing this. But a couple of things need to be borne in mind. Many of the books these authors are offering as, say, ebooks have already been professionally edited. New books they may be offering as self-published originals have been professionally edited---something a successful author can afford to do. For instance, one immensely successful SF author I know recently released more than a dozen novels all at once as ebooks...but these had all been previously published and were released with the help of her agent. All of which is to say that an established author has a leg up on the first-timer when it comes to self-publishing.

     

     


     

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • 50 Shades is often used as an example, often by myself too, of what started off as a self-published work, but it's path to 'greatness' was apparently a very long one. Basically it was much later taken up by a pulp publisher of - read once and throw away - stuff and sold in vast numbers because the media got to hear of it due to its content and apparent popularity with 'ordinary' 30-something mums. It got a lot of free publicity, which always aids sales, and was christened 'Mummy Porn', and of those I know who have read it, say it's badly written rubbish, and possibly why the follow-on books were not made in to films. Anyway, to cut a long story short, read this >>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#Background_and_publication

     

    You bring up two major problems. The first is that in order to have a self-published book become as successful as a traditionally published one, the author has to do pretty much everything the traditional publisher would---and bear all the expenses for that himself. He then has to make back all of that investment before he earns a penny from his books. And one has to also factor in the time spent in doing all of this, which includes promoting the book...time that could be spent writing.

     

    And even so is no guarantee of sales.

     

    The second is that readers know that a traditionally published book has run a gauntlet of editors, copy editors, proofreaders, etc., meaning that they have some guarantee of quality.

     

    I doubt they know, or care, but I am sure they will spot anything that has not been through the mill.

     

    But, some famous names are starting to ditch their traditional publishing houses and going independent because modern tech allows them to. The problem with that is it's not obvious they are self-published, so it still may not help remove the stigma of self-publishing. Shame really.

     

    That's true about a number of famous authors---in fact, I know two or three that have been doing this. But a couple of things need to be borne in mind. Many of the books these authors are offering as, say, ebooks have already been professionally edited.

     

    Indeed, due to often being already well-earning writers they can afford to pay people who know what they are doing. One interesting point is, though. Those who are self-publishing e-books of their traditionally published printed books using the files that a traditional publisher has proofread, worked over with by their editor, etc., etc., do they have the right to self-publish that finished manuscript? I know it will still be their own copyright, but out of contract can they use the text file worked on by that traditional publishing house?

     

    New books they may be offering as self-published originals have been professionally edited---something a successful author can afford to do.

     

    Indeed they can, and having a famous name helps, with fans awaiting the next piece of work, not caring how and by whom it's published.

     

    For instance, one immensely successful SF author I know recently released more than a dozen novels all at once as ebooks...but these had all been previously published and were released with the help of her agent. All of which is to say that an established author has a leg up on the first-timer when it comes to self-publishing.

     

    And an agent is always an asset.

     


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    50 Shades is often used as an example, often by myself too, of what started off as a self-published work, but it's path to 'greatness' was apparently a very long one. Basically it was much later taken up by a pulp publisher of - read once and throw away - stuff and sold in vast numbers because the media got to hear of it due to its content and apparent popularity with 'ordinary' 30-something mums. It got a lot of free publicity, which always aids sales, and was christened 'Mummy Porn', and of those I know who have read it, say it's badly written rubbish, and possibly why the follow-on books were not made in to films. Anyway, to cut a long story short, read this >>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#Background_and_publication

     

    Exactly!

     

    You bring up two major problems. The first is that in order to have a self-published book become as successful as a traditionally published one, the author has to do pretty much everything the traditional publisher would---and bear all the expenses for that himself. He then has to make back all of that investment before he earns a penny from his books. And one has to also factor in the time spent in doing all of this, which includes promoting the book...time that could be spent writing.

     

    And even so is no guarantee of sales.

     

    Also exactly. Even in traditional publishing every book is a crap shoot. The only possible time a publisher might expect a good return on its investment is when it is working with a proven author. But that accounts for only a fraction of the number of books published. And traditional publishers, especially the big ones, have established, experienced, well-funded advertising and promotion departments...something 99.99% of self-publishers don't have. To take one example, a traditional publisher will allow for substantial number of the print run of a book to be given away---to reviewers, for promotion, etc. (One thing that allows them to do this is the fact that the book will have been printed traditionally, not digitally. Traditionally printed books in quantity are much cheaper per unit.) If a self-published author wants to give away review copies, this becomes a major out-of-pocket expense.

     

    The second is that readers know that a traditionally published book has run a gauntlet of editors, copy editors, proofreaders, etc., meaning that they have some guarantee of quality.

     

    I doubt they know, or care, but I am sure they will spot anything that has not been through the mill.

     

    I do think that readers care, even if subliminally, but you are right that they will certainly notice if in the first few pages there are nothing but typos, rotten spelling, bad punctuation, etc...

     

    But, some famous names are starting to ditch their traditional publishing houses and going independent because modern tech allows them to. The problem with that is it's not obvious they are self-published, so it still may not help remove the stigma of self-publishing. Shame really.

     

    That's true about a number of famous authors---in fact, I know two or three that have been doing this. But a couple of things need to be borne in mind. Many of the books these authors are offering as, say, ebooks have already been professionally edited.

     

    Indeed, due to often being already well-earning writers they can afford to pay people who know what they are doing. One interesting point is, though. Those who are self-publishing e-books of their traditionally published printed books using the files that a traditional publisher has proofread, worked over with by their editor, etc., etc., do they have the right to self-publish that finished manuscript? I know it will still be their own copyright, but out of contract can they use the text file worked on by that traditional publishing house?

     

    Yes...they would have to have the contractual right to do this. In older contracts, e-publishing may not have been included, which would give the author the right to publish e-book editions. But most contracts over the past decade or more have included such a provision, meaning that any e-book would have to be published through the original publisher or the author would have to get an OK first in order to do it on their own. That was the case with my friend: she was unable to publish her own ebook editions of several of her titles for this reason.

     

     

     


     

    __________________________________________
    Black Cat Studios http://www.black-cat-studios.com/
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

     

     

    I doubt they know, or care, but I am sure they will spot anything that has not been through the mill.

     

    I do think that readers care, even if subliminally,

     

    It possibly never occurs to them to look who the publisher is, but there are of course some very well known ones. I look who publish them for perhaps obvious reasons. Then again, most books have a publisher's web address at the back where they can see what else they have published and by whom.

     

    but you are right that they will certainly notice if in the first few pages there are nothing but typos, rotten spelling, bad punctuation, etc...

     

    It's a shame that the creators of such don't realise that a reader will not buy another book by them, and will also warn their mates. It's still remarkable how many the follow ups to 50 Shades sold though. Perhaps some people are forgiving depending on the content?  Smiley Surprised But then again perhaps they are bought mainly by people with the same level of English? Smiley Very Happy

     

     

    That's true about a number of famous authors---in fact, I know two or three that have been doing this. But a couple of things need to be borne in mind. Many of the books these authors are offering as, say, ebooks have already been professionally edited.

     

    Indeed, due to often being already well-earning writers they can afford to pay people who know what they are doing. One interesting point is, though. Those who are self-publishing e-books of their traditionally published printed books using the files that a traditional publisher has proofread, worked over with by their editor, etc., etc., do they have the right to self-publish that finished manuscript? I know it will still be their own copyright, but out of contract can they use the text file worked on by that traditional publishing house?

     

    Yes...they would have to have the contractual right to do this. In older contracts, e-publishing may not have been included, which would give the author the right to publish e-book editions. But most contracts over the past decade or more have included such a provision, meaning that any e-book would have to be published through the original publisher or the author would have to get an OK first in order to do it on their own. That was the case with my friend: she was unable to publish her own ebook editions of several of her titles for this reason.

     

    Indeed. Some contracts will insist on Future Rights, but some times it's a contract to write four books or whatever, then they talk again.

  • ___________________________

    50 Shades is often used as an example, often by myself too, of what started off as a self-published work, but it's path to 'greatness' was apparently a very long one. Basically it was much later taken up by a pulp publisher of - read once and throw away - stuff and sold in vast numbers because the media got to hear of it due to its content and apparent popularity with 'ordinary' 30-something mums. It got a lot of free publicity, which always aids sales, and was christened 'Mummy Porn', and of those I know who have read it, say it's badly written rubbish, and possibly why the follow-on books were not made in to films. Anyway, to cut a long story short, read this >>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey#Background_and_publication

    _______________________________

     

    Just to play the devil's advocate... Speaking of which, the retainer check is late...

     

    While "Fifty Shades" probably did not achieve popularity based upon its artistic merit (Ms. James is not Norman Mailer, apparently) it did achieve popularity. I have to confess that I once considered trying to write pulp Westerns -- the meaningless sort that all run together, not like the high-end Zane Greys and Louis L'Amours.

     

    So, given that the original question #2 was whether self-published books have gone on to be successful, and given that sales can be considered a measure of success, "Fifty Shades" was successful. Artistic? Um, well. Great literature? Ah, good question.... Something you'd admit to ahving read if you read it... Probably not... But successful.

     

    But then, many successful stories have been badly written, and many badly-written stories have been successful. Take Henry James' Turn of the Screw: the man actually managed to write a boring ghost story. And not just boring, but boring like a diamond-tipped masonry drill. By the end of the story you don't care about the ghost: You'll only be haunted by the elusive last page.

     

    Along the same lines, some of the later Sherlock Holmes stories are notably weak; a few critics have put forward the theory that Doyle had no new ideas after the Reichbach Falls.  And we could cite examples all day long.

     

    But the fact is that a well-written story, self-published or not, can catch the public eye and be off like a shot. So the goal, then, is to write our stories well.

     

     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Just to play the devil's advocate... Speaking of which, the retainer check is late...

     

    I thought that was my job.

     

    While "Fifty Shades" probably did not achieve popularity based upon its artistic merit (Ms. James is not Norman Mailer, apparently) it did achieve popularity.

     

    Indeed, an example of extreme hype. I wonder how many bought it just to see what all the fuss was about and/or to see how bad it was? It may even have sold far more if it had been banned for a while.

     

    I have to confess that I once considered trying to write pulp Westerns -- the meaningless sort that all run together, not like the high-end Zane Greys and Louis L'Amours.

     

    Yup, like the so many that appear to be written by a computer able to change names and scenes based on a writer's style, they do seem to be so popular though.

     

    So, given that the original question #2 was whether self-published books have gone on to be successful, and given that sales can be considered a measure of success, "Fifty Shades" was successful.

     

    Indeed it was, based on cash. Some writers seem to have charmed lives. Take Harry Potter. I don't know of anyone who had heard of it until it had been made in to its first film.

     

    Artistic? Um, well. Great literature? Ah, good question.... Something you'd admit to ahving read if you read it... Probably not... But successful.

     

    So few books so seem to fill that category, and they win awards, but not always great sales. Shame. But some accumulate large sales by being on sale for decades, whereas some pulp books are just flash in the pans. Sudden short-lived over-hyped trends, often taken off the publishers' lists after a year or two.

     

    But then, many successful stories have been badly written,

     

    Define badly written.

     

    and many badly-written stories have been successful. Take Henry James' Turn of the Screw: the man actually managed to write a boring ghost story. And not just boring, but boring like a diamond-tipped masonry drill. By the end of the story you don't care about the ghost: You'll only be haunted by the elusive last page.

     

    Is that not just a matter of opinion? Not that I have read it, but many, in fact it seems most critics, would very strongly disagree with you. But then again it was written in 1898 when it may not have seemed "boring" and introduced a new genre, apparently. But most of the fuss over it seemed to be along the lines of "what was it about?!!"

     

    Along the same lines, some of the later Sherlock Holmes stories are notably weak;

     

    Something else I have not read, but have seen as old B & W films. They seemed OK to me. Don't forget they were also written a long time ago, 1887, when people were perhaps not so jaded.

     

    a few critics have put forward the theory that Doyle had no new ideas after the Reichbach Falls.  And we could cite examples all day long.

     

    It's not a theory. He only brought him back to life because of fan outcry and insisted on by his publisher.

     

    But the fact is that a well-written story, self-published or not, can catch the public eye and be off like a shot. So the goal, then, is to write our stories well.

     

    It is a genre that seems so popular, and is of course out of original copyright. It can be fun to remove all the last pages.

  • Just to play the devil's advocate... Speaking of which, the retainer check is late...

     

    I thought that was my job.

     

    They said you were taking too many coffee breaks and napping on the job.

  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Teacher

    Competition for the Devil's Advocate positions seems fierce.

     

    Alomst makes me wonder if there's a teamster's opening on the hellashish mule-team.

     


    Skoob_Ym wrote:

    Just to play the devil's advocate... Speaking of which, the retainer check is late...

     

    I thought that was my job.

     

    They said you were taking too many coffee breaks and napping on the job.


     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    They said you were taking too many coffee breaks and napping on the job.

     

    I can do it in my sleep.

Sign In or Register to comment.