From: chris.dolely@worldonline.fr   
      
   >"Nicky"  a écrit dans le message de   
   >news:dbf8c817-e6c6-46b5-acb0-868e0a27df7e@googlegroups.com...   
   >I've been sent a contract for my kid's horror story. There's no advance and   
   >the terms are not particularly great. The company is not well known, the   
   >jackets are terrible and i >am wondering if it might not be better to self   
   >pub or try to pub through some kind of author's collective for kid's stuff.   
      
   >I was going to self pub it because it isn't the kind of thing my agent reps   
   >and then, when I realised how time consuming it would be to self pub, I   
   >sent it out to a few >independents.   
   >The least attractive of them got back first and positively.   
      
   >I probably should have thought this through because I can't delay for long   
   >and I don't have time to send it to a better house. Obviously I am an   
   >idiot, but what do you think - is >any publisher better than none?   
      
   Any publisher is definitely not better than none. An incompetent publisher   
   can damage your reputation in many ways and, to the average reader, any   
   mistake they find in the book is your fault not the publishers. So... crap   
   covers, poor formatting, typos, pricing too high, distribution cock-ups -   
   the ways a bad publisher can harm you are legion. And then you have the   
   potential nightmare of the bankruptcy debacle - if your publisher goes   
   bankrupt your book could become tied up as an asset for years as creditors   
   and the courts argue over what to do with it. Was it Nightshade that   
   recently collapsed? Whoever it was, I know the resulting uncertainty left a   
   lot of authors severely stressed.   
      
   Chris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)