Should Authors Take Their Publishing Complaints Public?

By Neal 

Dark fantasy writer Michael Cisco broke radio silence on his blog last month to complain about his experiences with Prime Books, an independent publisher of science fiction, fantasy, and horror fiction, starting with the fact that he hasn’t gotten any royalties from his last novel, The Traitor. “Eagle-eyed vigilance in following the [Amazon.com sales rank,” he writes, “especially following selection by [Jeff] VanderMeer for the top 10 fantasy books [of 2007], and a glowing review from Nick Mamatas, gives me reason to believe at least 500 books have been sold just at that venue.”

“I am very sorry that we have, in Michael Cisco’s eyes, failed him,” Prime executive editor Sean Wallace emailed when I contacted him about Cisco’s allegations. “And he makes one point that I will concede: We want to improve our ongoing communications with our authors. I hope Michael will allow us to do so in his case. What I must dispute is that Michael has been cheated. He has not. Our royalty statements are accurate and truthful and easily verified. He has now seen his statement and knows that his royalty payment is accurate. It would be unprofessional for us to share these figures in public and I am sure Michael would agree.” (Rudimentary numbers are, of course, readily available through Nielsen Bookscan; I will merely note that Cisco’s estimation of his sales was grossly inflated.)

But what about Cisco’s other allegations about a lack of transparency, a failure to follow through on marketing commitments, and a haphazard-at-best approach to promotion? Well, as the ensuing commentary to his post revealed, those complaints aren’t unique in publishing. After Cisco said he was convinced Prime was trying to sign up “authors they believe are already being talked about precisely to as to avoid having to do publicity,” Poppy Z. Brite said she had an “almost identical” experience doing business on a much larger scale when she published three novels with Crown.

So did Prime deserve to be raked over the coals publicly by one of its authors—not to mention his final advice to other writers: “Try elsewhere! Don’t the same mistakes I did!” Wallace admitted that the press had made mistakes along the way, including falling behind schedule on some titles, but “we are always striving to be a better company,” he said. (As another author told me, “Prime has screwed up on occasion, but no more than any other small press does.”) “I’d like to invite all of our authors to contact us directly,” Wallace continued, “with feedback and suggestions about what, in their view, we might be doing better for them. We are listening.” It’s a diplomatic response that leaves an opportunity to move forward, unlike Cisco’s remarks, which are likely to come across as bitter rather than older-but-wiser.