Why You Must Try Self-Publishing

Have you been plodding the path of traditional publishing? Trying to find an agent or publisher to look at your work, with no success? Is your ego bruised and beaten from the constant rejection? Well, if you’ve had it up to here with the battering from conventional publishing companies, read on for a solution to your woes. Really, why do we persist in pursuing something so painful when the option of self-publishing is now so readily available? Gone are the days of the misunderstood author who can’t catch a break. Today, a writer can take on the responsibility and control of their publishing destiny, independent of agents, publishers and poor royalties. Excited? Then, let’s explore why an author would want to do that, and how. Creative Control When you choose to self-publish, you and your resources are responsible for the input of all creative content. This means you’ll be involved in every step of the production process with complete authority to create what you like, when you like. You’ll be making decisions about: writing proofreading editing formatting artwork, illustrations, and book covers budgets release dates marketing and promotions With traditional publishing, the author is usually only involved in the first two points, writing and proofreading. As an independently published author, you have full control over all aspects of getting your book to market. That doesn’t mean you have to do everything yourself, of course. One of the common themes of the successful indie author is the recommendation to hire professionals to handle some of the aesthetics. Formatting, artwork and book covers can all be successfully contracted out to industry experts if you don’t have the inclination or skills to do the work yourself. The point is to have a polished product that meets a high standard of professionalism – you want your book to look its best. Business Control As an indie author you retain all rights to your work and control the destiny of your business. Copyright, reprinting and distribution remain within the scope of your business domain. And as the business owner, you’ll have full authority over the following: Imprinting. You’ll need to establish a business identity if you plan on selling any of your books, as you then become a retailer. Price point. What price will you determine for your work? This article from Jane Litte at dearauthor.com has some interesting insights and observations on digital pricing. Budgets. Determine your budgets for any contracting services as well as marketing and promotions, because initially they’ll be coming out of your pocket. Until your sales with decent royalties fill the coffers again, that is. Publishing platform. You get to choose which of the self-publishing platforms will best serve your needs. You get paid monthly. Any distribution outlets that carry your books, such as Amazon, Barnes Nobel, Borders etc., will pay out on royalties on a monthly basis. Faster Publication A common complaint about old-fashioned publishing is the length of time it takes from signing a contract, to when the book arrives in the stores. An eighteen to twenty four months time frame is not uncommon. And that’s after the time it took to find an agent and a publisher. If your material is of a time sensitive nature, such as technology, medicine, science or current events, that’s simply too long. With self-publishing, you can have your published book ready for purchase within days or weeks you determine the pace. You Pocket the Profits Traditional publishers pay anywhere from between 6 – 25% royalties. As a self- published author, you keep 100% of the profits if you sell direct. Outlets such as Amazon pay up to 70% royalties on sales (if priced in their golden mean of between $2.99 and $9.99, royalties drop to 35% above or below those prices). If you want an idea of what royalties will come your way at each price point, check out the Amazon Royalties Estimator in the sidebar of Joe Konrath’s blog. It’s great for dreaming big. Steps to Self-Publishing If you’ve made the bold decision to go down the self-publishing route, congratulations! You’re in for quite a trip! And the following partial list taken from A Newbie’s Guide to Self Publishing by J.A. Konrath will help you on your way. Set your goal. First establish why you’re publishing to decide how to publish. This step will determine which self-publishing model to choose from; print-on-demand, vanity, subsidy, etc. Determine your price point. Do some research for pricing in your genre to decide where in Smashword’s sweet spot price range, your book will best be suited. Format your book. Do it yourself or hire someone. But if you plan on selling your book, do remember that appearances count. That first impression is important, so give your book a professional look and show that you mean business. Design your book cover. Lots of fun in this creative step, but again, maintain a high standard of professionalism at all stages. Write your product description. Pack your description with pertinent info and similar in style to that of others in your genre. Publish and publicize. Upload your digital version to the platform of your choice, and use social media to announce your release dates. Sure, there are more initial costs to self-publishing a book than with an established publishing house, and you do have all the responsibilities. It takes a lot of time, effort and energy to publish independently, but so does any solo entrepreneurial effort. It’s a business, and if you treat it as such you’ll enjoy the profits that come with running a successful business. And while self-publishing may not appeal to all writers, isn’t it great to know that the option exists if you do want to take control of your own publication empire?

Explain the Problem of Induction- Discuss Two Different Solutions to It. Essays

Explain the Problem of Induction- Discuss Two Different Solutions to It. Essays Explain the Problem of Induction- Discuss Two Different Solutions to It. Essay Explain the Problem of Induction- Discuss Two Different Solutions to It. Essay Explain the problem of induction- Discuss two different solutions to it. The problem of induction is the philosophical issue of whether using induction to justify our beliefs is reasonable. We have memories and experience from past events that allow us to prepare for the future. Although the future is not certain, using generalizations and predictions, we can assume with some certainty that, what will happen tomorrow, will be similar, if not the same as what happened today. We use induction to predict events happening in the future or make generalizations based on previous information we have obtained for example, we can assume that during the day, the sun will pass over the sky and disappear at night. We can assume this because it has happened every day that we have cared to notice since we existed. We also make generalizations, for example, every spider I have seen had exactly eight legs, and therefore I can say that the next spider I see will have eight legs also. The conclusions of the above arguments arrived due to inductive reasoning but they do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the premises. Some spiders may carry a certain gene that when bred with a spider with a similar gene, may produce a six legged spider. Although the likely hood of that happening may be low, it is possible and therefore makes the argument invalid. Making a series of observations, however many, may be thought to imply a particular conclusion about some future event only if induction itself works. If a prediction turns out to be correct, it does not establish the reliability of induction, except inductively. How can a prediction or a conclusion to an inductive argument be justified? David Hume (1711-1776, cited in Sober, 2004) states that there is a missing premise in all inductive arguments. Inductive arguments take the form of Observation (1) in my experience, fires are hot Conclusion (2) therefore, all fires are hot Hume states that the inference from observation to conclusion is evidence that the induction argument above is not fully clear. Without a second thought, the argument passes from observation to conclusion and shows that we accept a principle connecting the two. Hume formulates this missing premise as the claim that the future will resemble the past; a principle that is normally overlooked because everyone thinks it to be common sense, but it is present in every instance of inductive reasoning. What Hume suggests to make the inference from observation to conclusion valid is a premise that he calls the principal of the uniformity of nature (PUN) This principal does not claim that the future will resemble the past in every respect, it merely states that in some respect, the future will resemble the past. The new argument takes the form Observation (1) in my experience, fires are hot (PUN) (2) Nature is uniform Conclusion (3) therefore, all fires are hot The above argument is now valid. The premises justify the conclusion. We must assume that PUN if an inductive argument is made. Sceptics may still find the conclusion not rationally justified and therefore would have to attack a premise. The obvious choice for a sceptic would be to attack premise 2. They would state that PUN is an inductive argument it self e. g. 1)For as long as I have observed, nature has been constant Therefore, (2) Nature in general is uniform An inductive argument cannot defend an inductive argument as that would be circular and PUN cannot be defended by a deductive argument as the observations we have made provide no evidence for this. Perhaps to defend the PUN, I could change the definition to fit a similar statement as â€Å"all circles are round. † Hume rejected this by stating that there would be no c ontradiction in supposing that the universe should suddenly change (Sober, 2004). Also PUN infers that the future resembles the past in some respect. This principal would not help me if I wanted to know how many legs spiders have in the future. If the future is only similar in some respect how can PUN be a reliable insight into the future? As shown above, PUN cannot be defended and therefore cannot be justified. Therefore the problem of induction is that all of the inductive inferences we make cannot be rationally justified, we cannot give a reason why we make the inferences we do. Hume suggested a solution to the problem of induction; he stated that because of our natural beliefs and basic instincts. When we are all born with the acceptance of PUN, every human and every animal has this trait. Perhaps we have obtained this from the countless years of evolution or a gift from a divine being. Wherever it comes from, it is set so deeply in our minds that we have no real choice about whether to accept it. We are able to momentarily forget about the principal, but nature soon reasserts itself and we begin to make generalizations and assumptions. Hume also state that when we are confronted with a natural belief, a belief that comes to us as naturally e. g. believing the sun will rise in the morning, we are rationally justified in accept it. A belief can be rational in this sense even though we cannot supply any convincing arguments for it. If two people therefore have different beliefs regarding the same situation e. g. the sun will rise tomorrow and the sun will not rise tomorrow, they can both be rationally justified if it is their natural beliefs that caused their decisions. What we are rationally entitled to believe depends on what sort of beliefs we have, and not just on the available evidence and argument. In conclusion, the problem of induction does not have a definite solution that every can agree to. A possible solution may be to believe in what we naturally believe in. Reference: Sober, E. ( 4th edn. 2004). Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc. http://explanation-guide. info/meaning/Problem-of-induction. html

How significant a role did Ideology play in the formation of Soviet Essay

How significant a role did Ideology play in the formation of Soviet foreign policy - Essay Example The paper tells that Soviet analysts have held that the central characteristic of Soviet foreign policy was established through Lenin’s Decree on Peace that was approved in November 1917 by the Second Congress of Soviets. It set forth the two fold objectives of Soviet foreign policy that encompassed both peaceful coexistence and proletarian globalism. On the one side, proletarian globalism is understood as the normal basis for the working classes of all nations that struggled to bring down the bourgeoisie and to introduce communist governments. On the other hand, peaceful coexistence referred to adopting procedures to establish comparatively passive inter government relationships with capitalist nations. Both these policies could be pursued together because Soviet policy makers believed that peaceful coexistence assumes that there will be strong resistance to imperialist aggressions. It also presupposed the backing for people protecting their radical achievements or fighting e xternal oppressions. Under Lenin, the policy of the Soviet Union can be defined as involving both pragmatism and ideology, which was a part of the dialectical process. Marxist ideology provided a strong basis for the Bolsheviks to act against the material conditions faced by them. Marxism Leninism pertained to the idea of contextualizing Soviet actions relative to the material circumstances that confronted the Bolsheviks and the proletariat during this period. The initial foreign policy decisions taken by the Bolsheviks were about the issue of how the Great War was to be approached. Eventually, the Bolshevik government made a decision to end the involvement of the Tsar with the central powers by accepting the peace terms dictated by Germany. Consequently, the Bolsheviks lost control of several regions that were under Russian control such as Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which implied the loss of vast areas as well as more than a population of 50 million people, inc luding coal mining, iron production and significant parts of the rail networks. Accepting such severe terms can be understood as a practical approach towards foreign policy because the Soviets wanted to have the best possible bargain under the given circumstances (Goldgejer, 1994). During this time, there were divisions in terms of the relationship between pragmatism and ideology amongst Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin. Lenin felt that the decisions taken were in keeping with the Soviet ideology and Trotsky held that if there was no war, peace could not be established, which meant that a cease fire had to be called for without getting involved in the signing of peace treaties. Bukharin believed that there should be a revolutionary war because he wanted that Russia should continue with the war, which would allow Russia to get support from the Germans who in turn would stop assisting the war initiatives against the Bolsheviks. In this context, communist ideology indicates that Bukharinâ⠂¬â„¢s sense of communists was the actual understanding of Marxism because of the element of internationalism (Hoffman et al., 1981). Foreign policy of the Soviet Union is often held responsible with compromising on ideology relative to the need for integrating into the global political identity, which was primarily for economic motives. Soviet pragmatism aimed at gaining trade rights by providing capitalist nations with access to the country’s natural resources (Kull, 1992). This policy was driven by