In the Romance witches subgenre the NYT reviewed a self-published ebook by M.J. Etkind, "The Witch of Wall Street." The reviewer liked it. Hint: the female witch's specialty is chaos.
I cannot remember seeing self-published work reviewed before.
In the Romance witches subgenre the NYT reviewed a self-published ebook by M.J. Etkind, "The Witch of Wall Street." The reviewer liked it. Hint: the female witch's specialty is chaos.
I cannot remember seeing self-published work reviewed before.
It's all based on impact. While the vast majority of self-published works are viewed with distain, those with sales equal to the officially published bestsellers have a LOT more relevance. As they say, "The world, it is a changing".
This is especially true with more and more bestselling novelists are now going into self-publishing so rather than receiving only fractions of a cent per book sold, they can earn some serious money, without the publishers restrictions, while retaining their existing fan base. That's a win-win for everyone (author and readers) if not for the traditional publisher, yet they've been watching the writing on the wall for long enough. If they don't start giving ground for those most deserving of exemptions, they won't be around for long.
This is especially true with more and more bestselling novelists are now going into self-publishing so rather than receiving only fractions of a cent per book sold, they can earn some serious money
Sometimes, it's for other reasons than the royalty amount.
I met a successful traditionally published author on wattpad years ago. His name is Michael J. Sullivan. It wasn't the royalties that pushed him to self-publish. It was retaining certain publishing rights. I think it was Hachette who he had a dispute with. The Hachette CEO demanded that an author give up all publishing rights to publish with them. Michael was willing to give up the print, digital, etc. rights, but he wanted to retain the audio rights. The CEO refused. Michael left them and, at the time anyway, self-published.
He went about self-publishing in a unique way. Since he had such a large fan base, he set up a GoFundMe page to write a new novel. When he reached the goal, he wrote the novel.
Sorry, but Hatchett has never been a reputable site, as it's NOT a self-publishing site, instead it's a Vanity Press, where they charge you a premium to publish your own work and then dump boxes of 200 books apiece on you, charging you through the nose for it while retaining exclusive copyright for your work, so there's no way you can go anywhere else.
Vanity presses of the worst of the worst, as there's no absolutely no benefit to using them. And once again, that's what you get when you're incapable or unwilling to read the actual TOS.
From Wikipedia (spit!)
Hachette is considered one of the "big five" publishing companies, along with Holtzbrinck/Macmillan, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster.[4] In one year, HBG publishes approximately 1400+ adult books (including 50–100 digital-only titles), 300 books for young readers, and 450 audiobook titles (including both physical and downloadable-only titles). In 2017, the company had 167 books on the New York Times bestseller list, 34 of which reached No. 1.
AJ
Sorry, but Hatchett has never been a reputable site, as it's NOT a self-publishing site, instead it's a Vanity Press,
Sorry, but Hachette is one of the Big-5.
From their site:
Hachette Book Group (HBG) is a leading US general-interest book publisher made up of dozens of esteemed imprints within the publishing groups Basic Books Group; Grand Central Publishing Group; Hachette Audio; Little, Brown and Company; Little, Brown Books for Young Readers; Orbit; and Workman Running Press Group.
Our books and authors have received the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, Caldecott Medal, Newbery Medal, Booker Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, James Beard Award, and other major honors.
In 2024, the company had 83 books on the New York Times bestseller list, 21 of which reached #1.
It's not clear to me what it takes to get a self-published novel reviewed by the NYT Book Review. (Not the same as its sales rank.)
"She explained that the New York Times receives hundreds of books that would like to get reviewed each day. Believe it or not, all the books, except for self-published books, receive some kind of look by a staff of critics and freelance reviewers. The type of look each book gets, however, varies. While one book's look lasts a few seconds, another book gets read cover to cover."
That's apparently not entirely true. Somehow the self-published "Witch of Wall Street" got reviewed. Ten years ago "The Revolution Will Not be Televised" got reviewed. I couldn't find any explanation of how "Witch" was chosen and whether it happens more often now with increased self-publishing. In addition to quality, sales matter, but I'm guessing fortuitous connections matter as well.
There are a lot of reasons for self-publishing, but it's worth noting that the case SB cites is a previously published author with a fan base. "50 Shades" got picked up by a publisher once it had sold a gazillion copies.
In other words, self-publishing is a pretty tough road to bestselling status.
So what gets a book reviewed by the NYT? Why do I ask? Because we should all aim high ...
As I understand it from my kid, who is in the publishing industry in NYC, every book received, regardless of source, gets a brief scan. If the first reader sees promise, it gets fully read. The second reader determines who next reads to do the review depending on the genre. Well established authors like James Patterson automatically goes to the third level.
Yeah, but their definition of a 'brief scan' is highly dubious. As the vast majority sit in a pile, and whoever (mostly the clerical staff) who grab a copy, count as an "official" review. And, if no one does, then it's automatically rejected after a certain date.
There are lots of 'gotchas' in any legal document, and the publishing industry has all sorts of them too. That said, there's no a new publishing company, who based on their success with "50 Shades" series, is now challenging the traditional publishers, only they're only opening it up to a single new genre at a time. However, I read those reports some time ago and can't remember the name of the new site.
I've posted about it on Quora, yet Quora has NO search capabilities. They'll 'suggest' similar works, yet it's hardly an adequate search capability. I'll have to see if I can find the company again as it is a company to watch, if only to keep up with which genres they're currently supporting. Yet they're making a killing at what they are publishing, so they're growing like gangbusters (last I check).
Yeah, but their definition of a 'brief scan' is highly dubious. As the vast majority sit in a pile, and whoever (mostly the clerical staff) who grab a copy, count as an "official" review.
You're conflating the first look at a book with a published review. No one claims that first look is a "review."
Yep, first look is to determine if anyone should look at it seriously. Not until the third look by a "seasoned reader" is it even possibly considered for review.
That said, there's no a new publishing company, who based on their success with "50 Shades" series, is now challenging the traditional publishers,
Vintage is a division of Penguin Random House and has been around since 1954.
AJ