Pulp Fiction discussion
Writer's/Blogger Corner
>
Are Self Published Books Inherently Inferior?
In general, I do think self-published (SP) books are weaker. Many are first & only books, which brings the average way down. I've heard a lot of authors don't particularly care for their own first novels & would like them forgotten. Far too many don't get a decent editor, if they have one at all. I've ARC read books for writers after a paid editor has gone through them & been amazed at some of the mistakes that I caught. Are the authors just being ripped off? Possibly, but I believe most publishing houses use several editors looking at different things.
I read quite a few SP novels & short stories, though. I've found a lot of crap, but some real jewels, too.
The editing is a big issue. If a self published author is going to expect money for their work they owe it to that reader to present their best work possible, meaning getting someone besides a family member or friend to seriously edit/critique the work. Writers who do not do this are only hurting their own reputation.
Always superior? No, of course not. I've read more than one traditionally published book that's awful, and there are some quality self-published books. Also, with the miracle of "look inside" on Amazon, you can look at the first chapter or so of most books without ever leaving your chair at home. If it's terribly written, you'll be able to tell before purchasing. So scan a few self-published books and decide for yourself if they are all crap or if there are some that are worth your time.
I think I agree with everyone here. The main thrust of my essay is that self published authors like me have to create a freelance team of professionals to help bring their manuscript from first draft to published book. That includes the editors (probably more than one), cover designers, proofreaders and fact checkers for non fiction. It is a more expensive proposition, but it will raise the quality of our work in the end.Thanks.
Gamal
Absolutes are always doubtful. Of course all self-published books are not inferior to all professionally-published books (especially these days, what with many publishing companies cutting way back on editorial oversight, even at the basic level of proof-reading). One of the best comics series of the last fifty years, Cerebus the Aardvark, was self-published; it was better than most everything else being published in the field, at least for a good portion of its run.As a general rule, though? Well, let's just say that I don't read a lot of self-published work. I think (actually, I know) a publisher can (and does) still bring a lot to the table, to ensure at least minimum standards of quality.
I hate to say this but before I "arrived" on Goodreads about six months ago I was somewhat doubtful about the quality of self-published books. The word "Indie" was completely alien to me. However, four brilliant Indie books immediately spring to mind that I have read recently and I know that three of the authors, and hopefully the fourth, have books coming out in 2013.
And they are:
"Resurrected" by Steve Trotter,
"Solstice" by Paola Graziani,
"The Magic Throne" by L.J.R. Worrall,
"NonOfficial Asset" by William Sewell.
They all deserve to be available in bookshops worldwide. I should add that I've read four traditionally published books and they were awful. All a question of taste I believe.
And they are:
"Resurrected" by Steve Trotter,
"Solstice" by Paola Graziani,
"The Magic Throne" by L.J.R. Worrall,
"NonOfficial Asset" by William Sewell.
They all deserve to be available in bookshops worldwide. I should add that I've read four traditionally published books and they were awful. All a question of taste I believe.
Dominick wrote: "Absolutes are always doubtful...."Funny, but I typed that first, too. Then deleted it, but I heartily agree.
-----------
The problem we all face is separating the the grain from the chaff & even traditionally published books contain a lot of chaff. Most of the grain isn't to my taste either, to run this analogy into the ground. With millions of books available, hundreds of thousands published every year, how in the world am I going to find the 100 or so that I want to read?
(In my lifetime to date, I've read just over 1% of the books that were published in one recent year!!!)
I think GR is the best answer I've seen. Not only do I get to friend people with like tastes in various genres, but I get to meet a lot of authors & get books to read.
Gamal wrote: "... The main thrust of my essay is that self published authors like me have to create a freelance team of professionals to help bring their manuscript from first dra..."Have you read Konrath & Eisler's conversations about self-publishing? Both of them were traditionally published, then dropped out to self-publish. They're making more money faster, but both do have teams in place plus a following to start with.
Some fairly well known SF author self-published one novel & said it was a train wreck, never again. He wants to write, not market & do all that other stuff.
Then there are a few cases where the self-published author
makes it big & gets picked up by the traditional publisher. One of them said it was a relief as she'd finally have a life again. Doing all the jobs required was wearing her out.
That's the trick, isn't it? Writing the book is only one part of the job. Successful publishing requires a lot more than just the text--though obviously the text is the most important piece. If you're going to self-publish and have any hope of making a living--especially in the current market--you'll have to find ways to do at least some of the additional things publishing companies do yourself, one way or the other--either by learning how to do them or by hiring people to do them for you--by, in effect, becoming a professional or quasi-professional publisher in your own right.
Just imagine all the time marketing takes away from actually writing. One author told me he thought the best advertisement for a book was the next book. Seems like a tough way to make a living to me.
Alberto wrote: "Independently of the inferior or superior quality, what Self Published Books are is more expensive than traditionally published ones for us who doesn't read in digital format. Ususally you can get ..."Alberto,
You're right that it's hard to deliver a book via print on demand for the price of a mass market paperback. That said, mine are 8,88 Euros on Amazon. ;-)
Alberto wrote: "Haha, I'll check it, David. In fact yours and Jackson Burnett's The Past Never Ends are the ones I'm more interested into by the authors in this group, probably I'll get them soon."I keep meaning to get to Burnett's book. I will soon. E-reading really is cheaper; not just the price of books, but no delivery charge, either!
If you get to my book, I'll be interested in what you think, whether you like it or not. Although, of course, I hope you like it!
I really find it bizarre that the price of a book influences its purchase. I've been known to spend quite a bit on a book. I think that many people nowadays want "cheapness" (perhaps due to their financial position?) and that doesn't always guarantee "quality". Sad...
Well put! That put me in my place...
I think Kurt made an excellent comment that it's all about the editing, and I'd break it down even finer into fiction and non-fiction. I don't hesitate to pick up non-fic self-published, especially in a discipline where the writer has degrees or extensive, proven experience. Most of the time this indicates the information is already categorized in the writer's head, they've had the benefit of expensive instruction to keep it organized, and they're sitting down to write as the very last step in years of prep on the topic. What comes out on paper is fairly well-organized. With a good proofreading they're off to Amazon or Smashwords with it.Compare that to the novelist. Many times they are writing something that they haven't studied or experienced (crime, maybe) or doesn't even exist (science fiction). The novel is the first try-out of this information. One pass from the editor's pen is often not enough to hone the material and get it shaped to a professional standard. My own novel got three passes from two professional editors and probably 6 full passes on the proofreading. Nobody, myself included, is ever prepared for the tremendous amount of work and time that needs to be spent on editing pass after pass. If you're doing it yourself, this costs money. It's an investment, and it needs to be made.
That's why, for the most part, self-published fiction is not all it could be. (Previously published books that are re-published by the author don't really count because they've already been through the process--Rebecca Forster and Barry Eisler for example.) But all this being said, there are fiction gems out there, completely ready and fully fantastic, and they get discovered by readers who then bring them to everyone's attention and they take off. Those are the successes.
That's my 2 cents! (Okay more like 25 cents)
Anonymous-9
author Hard Bite
Absolutely not. It isn't a black and white issue. I've picked up several novels at bookstores and read the first couple paragraphs and they're crap. Plus prolific, well-known authors can get any of their writing published, regardless of the quality.Many authors self-publish after sending only a few query letters because they're tired of or don't like rejections. In addition, what one agent likes another hates. It's so subjective.
Talent must be there, first and foremost, but the rest is luck, frankly. The right agent or publisher reading your work at the right time when they're in the right mood. Sometimes the stars have to align. But to make the blanket statement that self-published books are inherently inferior to traditionally published books is one of ignorance. The fact is, if your writing is good, you send out enough queries and are patient, while everyone else is giving up, you'll eventually succeed. If you send 50 queries out and don't get anything but form letters, you need new material or to improve as a writer, but if out of those 50 you get, say, a handful of personal, positive responses (e.g., the plot was intriguing and the suspense constant but the characters weren't quite fully developed, etc.), you're on the right track. Listen to the critiques and use the advice in your writing. You will eventually get published, although it might be a year, two years, five years, or more.
Let me provide a good example. My dad, Gene Riehl, has two novels published by St. Martin's Press--Quantico Rules and Sleeper--which netted him hundreds of thousands of dollars, but it wasn't until after some 150 rejections or so and about seven years after he began writing his first novel, which happens to be the first he sold. Another example is Stephen King, who got over 200 rejections before selling his first novel.
The fact is, your work can be great and you can go the self-publishing route if you are confident in your editing ability and don't have the time or patience to send queries (although you can do much of it via email now; just make sure the query makes your book seem like the best ever written), but you better be able and willing to market and promote the crap out of it or nobody will ever know you or your work exist.
It goes without saying that professional editing helps. But if you know how to write, have a good command of the English language, and are patient enough and willing to put hours and hours of work into it, you can do it yourself. There are many success stories of unknown, self-published authors making it big. If your book is good, and you can get some positive buzz going anything is possible. Think outside the box though. Social media alone isn't going to cut it.
I wonder how many times King tweaked his work & how many different pieces he submitted before he got it right. The fact that he had to sell someone else on his stuff doesn't necessarily always make it better, but I'll bet it helps a bunch in most cases.My favorite author, Roger Zelazny, wrote quite a few pieces & kept getting turned down. He had a degree in English Lit, I believe. He went back over his rejections & read them with a critical eye. He made some changes to his writing style & was soon being published. Then he was winning awards.
I think that's the biggest flaw in self-publishing. Too many people can put out stuff before it is really ready. Family & friends might have rubber stamped it, but that doesn't mean it's really the best the author can do.
Yes they are, until they make money. $$$$$$$$$
Ismael wrote: "Yes they are, until they make money. $$$$$$$$$"Lol!
Ismael wrote: "Yes they are, until they make money. $$$$$$$$$"Yes, if you look at the Amazon top sellers, clearly there is money to be made with SP titles such as "Dirty Eden". I think because no one can tell what you're reading on your Kindle, there are new customers every day who devour this type of content.
I posted my opinion about self-published works on another thread, and those thoughts seem to be reflected here by several of the posts, so I won't re-post.
But I have changed my mind about never buying SP work at all. I can tell there are some good, smart writers in this thread, and those of you who have self-identified as authors have found a potential customer in me. Who knows, maybe someday you'll return the favor.
Before I sign off, I'd like to share my favorite essay on the creative process, by Ira Glass (it's only 2 minutes): http://vimeo.com/24715531
Dirty Eden? Really? Sometimes I wonder if I've been leading too sheltered a life! But seriously, Joe, I'm very happy that we've convinced you to try an SP book sometime. And be sure to post a review!
The problem with most self-published titles (and e-book titles put out by small e-publishers)is that they are often put out on the market before they are ready. As mentioned above a book normally requires an initial content edit, structual edit, and proof for grammar typos etc. This should be done by three different editors in addition to the author who is of course the overall editor. That said there is some charm in finding the rough gems out there. Self-published books that have some mistakes but are driven by a strong narrative voice, good characters, or a great story.
As a reader I require a book to be good in character, voice or story. Typos can be overlooked if the overall talent or intent is strong.
Since this is a Pulp Fiction discussion, let's toss another element into the mix...traditional publishing's failure to provide a stage upon which new crime fiction authors can develop their chops and voice. Basically, traditional publishing is so narrowly focused on the blockbuster novel there is no developing of new talent...there are no pulp magazines where a new author can learn by "performing" in front of a critical audience. There aren't even paperback lines that replaced those pulps. The classic hard boiled crime fiction stories are the cream that rose out of thousands of such stories written by "hack" writers. There's more to being a writer than technical proficiency. Learning how to tell a story that isn't the same old thing can't just be learned in front of supportive friends. Authors have to learn how to satisfy a paying crowd, and that means sometimes having to deal with having verbal tomatoes tossed at the offered stories. Self-published eBooks are the new pulp magazines...with the added advantage to the reader of being able to sample the writing before paying for it.
Interesting discussion, and a question I've thought about a lot. I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think it's great that the self-publishing route is out there, but I think in many cases it makes it too easy to give up on the polishing process. No one wants to hear criticism, but I think there's always improvements that can be made - if authors don't want anyone to tell them to change their writing, then they are never going to be the best they can be. Of course I'm more likely to pick up a polished, professionally done cover
Whoops, wasn't done. Sorry. Anyway, we trust publishers to take some of the guesswork out of whether a book is worth our money and our time. They are not infallible, and of course they pass by some worthy causes, but their job is to sell books and they reject the ones that they think (for whatever reason) aren't worth the investment. And the ones that are, they pour out an army of hammers to make them shine more brightly.
We honestly all judge a book by its cover, and I've found in general that sp covers are to pro covers as local tv ads are to national chain commercials. We don't want to use either to form an opinion of a product, but of course we do.
That said, I've read some great sp books on kindle and didn't mind spending a lot less to try them out because of positive reviews on goodreads or a well-written blurb - after which I'm happy to add to positive reviews to help the author get read and noticed.
Cathie, that's a great point on the lack of pulps to practice on. On the SF side, I remember reading several of the big names commenting on how the feedback from pulp editors helped them learn their craft.The pulps are gone, but there have been a lot of attempts at bringing them back in electronic format. None have stuck around long & the couple I'm familiar with didn't seem to do any editing. They accepted or rejected a story only.
Feedback is only possible when the editor has time. I think the ratio of writers to editors is way out of balance now. Word processors make 'writing' seem easy, so millions are trying it. Editing hasn't changed, though. It's still as time consuming & requires both a lot of education & talent. And I have less faith in them simply because the publishers aren't giving them the time or resources.
Bobbi wrote: "...we trust publishers to take some of the guesswork out of whether a book is worth our money and our time...."On the whole, I agree with you, but they're not doing a great job on many lately. They seem too concentrated on getting the next book of the series out to properly edit it. I quit reading the Harry Dresden books after a bunch of huge errors in the 6th book.
It's happened before. Back in the early 90's, there were a bunch of Ace reprints that were awful - they manually typed a lot of books in & didn't check them. They're full of misspellings, lines out of place, & other errors.
In both cases, I believe the cause was mergers - big business meddling in art. It's less easy to see the other problems this cause - new authors not getting picked up or developed properly. Older ones aren't getting the time & attention they deserve & need.
An author told me she worked with the same head editor on her series for years, but now she might work with a different one or two over the course of a book. It is a long & complicated series. The new editor hadn't read the entire series & had no history with the author - not good in the interface between an artist & the business world - much less from a creative standpoint. The series is done in several thematic arcs & should be edited from that point of view, which obviously can't be done if the corporation is shuffling editors about.
Jim, excellent points about "the death of the editor." This is a matter I've lamented for a while now, and to some extent it goes hand-in-hand with the internet's "democratization of information." Everyone having a voice is in many ways a great thing (e.g., forums like this one), BUT there are always trade-offs with change, and one of them in this case has been the disappearance or marginalization of "custodians" or "curators of culture" who can help separate the wheat from the chaff and then make sure the wheat is processed correctly. THE NEW YORKER remains one of my great pleasure because it may be the only mass culture periodical that is still truly WELL EDITED--from editorial control and style down to proof reading and fact checking.
And there are consequences related to the changes of the last 20 years: Note the large percentage of books that "this group likes" come from the pre-Internet age. Will the realities of the Information Age mean that coming generations will produce LOTS of crime fiction texts via all kinds of technologies, but no eternal classics?
There might be a ton of classics, but no one will ever know about them. The number of books published annually in the US & Britain alone is now in excess of a million & climbing rapidly. Most genres & markets are saturated already, so discovering any classic is tough - we still haven't finished the best sellers from 5 years ago! You might read a great novel & get a dozen of your friends to - even 100 - but that's nothing statistically nor monetarily to the author. IOW, the author isn't quitting their day job & may never be able to afford the time to write their magnum opus or a properly edited version. (Oops, we're back to no classic even being written!) But there are a few authors out there who got it right the first & only time, e.g., Margaret Mitchell & Harper Lee. Still, most developed their craft over years & had flashes of brilliance somewhere along the way.
Here's an interesting article: "The 10 Awful Truths About Book Publishing". The ugly thing is that circumstances today are forcing successful authors to be good at marketing.
http://outthinkgroup.com/the-10-awful...
I think things will steady down in a decade or two, but it's an ugly time right now. Technology has pushed & business has dragged its heels, so the controls are overwhelmed. While this is sad as far as fiction authors go, it's downright scary in the news field. Sensational news sells, our attention span is very limited, & issues are more complicated than ever, yet the traditional news services have less money & ability to do any sort of in-depth coverage.
Bobbi wrote: "Interesting discussion, and a question I've thought about a lot. I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think it's great that the self-publishing route is out there, but I think in many cases it..."I've never really been interested in short stories - either reading them or writing them - but perhaps I should try to work more shorts into my reading diet. And for writing, it's got to be the fastest way to get feedback, since the alternative is begging your friends to read your 50K word manuscript and then bugging them every two weeks.
The pulps may be gone, but there are plenty of short story groups that meet online and in person.
Jim, Mark -- you guys are depressing me! I don't know what the answer is to finding the diamonds in the rough, but I do think someone else besides the author has to be the book's salesman. When I see someone I've never heard of before pimpin' their own book...I'm sorry, but I'm just not persuaded by that at all.
And that's sad, because one day soon I'll probably be a self-published author. I have an agent shopping my MS around now, and we've had a few close-but-no-cigar passes. But it's been about a year and a half now, and if there are no more nibbles by the spring, I'll just self-publish with Amazon. I'll have a few hard copies printed, maybe rent out a bar somewhere and throw myself a launch party. Hopefully, it will be a gratifying way to end a project I started about 8 years ago.
I've always liked short stories. They're an art form all on their own, though. Lately, even a lot of them seem bloated. Clarke & Zelazny both managed great stories in a couple of pages. I think Harlan Ellison is the master of the SF short story, though. I really like a story to be as long as it needs to be. That's the biggest plus to the electronic format, IMO. No more worries about length due to packaging. I've read too many that I suspected were bloated or gutted from otherwise good authors.
An alternative to short stories is the serialized one, the way the pulps used to handle them. I started reading an electronic one, but a month is a long time for me to remember to look for & buy the next installment of one story. A whole pulp was much easier back in the day, especially if I had a subscription. I think it would work now if the author had an email list & could send reminders, but I don't think Amazon is set up for that. If they are, this author wasn't.
Have you given any thought to serializing your book, Joe?
If you equate writing with music, you will find a lot of similarities. It used to be incredibly expensive to record an album and to release and promote it, so you needed a record company like most authors needed a publishing company.Indie bands have prospered - they can now easily set-up their own distribution channels through internet, upload their videos through Youtube, and record their own albums, releasing their own CDs, DVDs and MP3. They might not sell in the millions like the latest Record Company releases, but they can recoup their cost and make a tidy profit while building their fanbase. Plus they don't need to adhere to the taste of the Record Company.
That is awfully close to how technology has made it easier to publish your work independently of the Publishing Company. The distribution channels are there, you can work the social media to expand your fanbase, and you don't need to adhere to the ideas of Publishing Companies about what they judge to be a viable vehicle for commercial mass appeal.
Still, you have to get your book up to trade publishing standard on an often limited budget.
The thing is, how do you approach the craft on a limited budget? By always being open to criticism.
I've been writing for twenty years and I was part of writing groups where we would exchange manuscripts and be honest about the flaws. I slowly grew an army of beta readers who will tear apart my manuscript for anything from typos to continuity to factual errors to plot holes. Three of my betas are editors--two are retired and one provides her services for free because she knows my money is tight, and she loves my stories. So the main thing is that I do not rely on my own judgement, but I have many eyes look critically at my work.
If you are serious about your work, find people who are willing to read your manuscript and provide honest feedback. Tell them you prefer their honest feedback before publication to negative reviews after publication, that will help them not to pull their punches but tell you the flaws in your manuscript so you can fix things before you publish.
Like James says (#27), many self-published books are published 'before they are ready', and that is certainly true. Many SP books seem like rough drafts to me, as if nobody has read the manuscript and told the writer how to polish the draft into a book.
If you cannot afford an editor, join a writing circle or any other place where fellow writers are willing and interest to swap manuscripts and give honest feedback.
If you don't allow your manuscript to be judged before it is published, you run the risk of having it judged brutally after it is published.
Many SPAs look at reviews for feedback on their work. Reviews are for readers to advice them if the book is worthy of their time, money and attention. It's not meant to provide feedback that should've been asked before publication.
That doesn't mean I haven't learned from my own reviews. I posted an article on my blog about getting unexpected reviews, when I got reviews from a group of readers I didn't have in mind when I wrote my novels. And I found that people will identify and seek out certain type of characters, who can become more popular to them than the character I considered to be the primary protagonist (luckily in my case it's the secondary protagonist, not an antagonist or minor character).
Martyn wrote: "If you equate writing with music, you will find a lot of similarities. It used to be incredibly expensive to record an album and to release and promote it, so you needed a record company like most ..."Thanks for this post, Martyn. It got me thinking about ways to find a good, thorough review.
One avenue might be to hire an independent editor from an organization such as this:
http://www.the-efa.org/res/rates.php
So, a 50K word manuscript -- at 250 words per page -- would probably run around $500. Kind of pricey for a middle class dude like myself, but probably worth it when considering the feedback I've gotten from some friends. ("Oh yeah, I finished it, couple months ago, meant to call you. It was pretty good.")
Another route might be a standalone college course. I did this a few years back, and found it rewarding. Because everyone in the class has got some skin in the game, there was plenty of good feedback to go around. But this can be even more expensive than a freelance editor; I just checked The New School catalog (where I had taken the course, online) and the noncredit tuition is $730. Yikes.
Joe wrote: "Thanks for this post, Martyn. It got me thinking about ways to find a good, thorough review."What exactly are you looking for, Joe? A review is for published novels, feedback is for manuscripts you intend to publish.
If it's feedback you're after, try joining something like Critique Circle, where people exchange manuscripts and provide each other with feedback intended to improve their writing.
Martyn wrote: "Joe wrote: "Thanks for this post, Martyn. It got me thinking about ways to find a good, thorough review."What exactly are you looking for, Joe? A review is for published novels, feedback is for m..."
I guess I was using the terms interchangeably; feedback is what I'm going for, as the work is unpublished.
I looked at Critique Circle. It looks like it could be a good resource. Not sure how it would work with a novel though, as the submissions max out at 5K words. Yeah, you could do it piecemeal, but I don't know that you could depend on getting the same reviewer for all of the chapters...?
It looks like it's much better suited for short stories. Jim, to answer your question (from like a month ago!), I've been kicking around an idea in that department: a retired cop does a sideline business as an airport car service. The gist of it is that you never can tell what you might learn about somebody during an hour-long car ride.
Joe wrote: "I guess I was using the terms interchangeably; feedback is what I'm going for, as the work is unpublished."Joe, Critique Circle is only one of many of these critique boards. If your manuscript is finished and needs 'beta-testing' to find flaws, you're looking for 'beta-readers'. There are several groups here on GR that might be able to help you, look specifically for author/reader and author feedback groups.
Important is to write down a blurb like you would to appeal to an agent, and give some basics like wordcount and genre. Post a new topic where you explain who you are and that you need 'serious feedback' from people who can be critical.
Make sure you find people who won't pull punches when it comes to exposing your flaws - you'll need to be shown what you cannot see for yourself so you can improve your writing.
If you need more help, check out my profile and spot me an email and I'll help you along.
Gamal wrote: "As authors and readers, do you feel that in the current market the quality of a traditionally published books is always superior to the quality of a self published book?..."Yes, certainly. For many reasons. What looms largest in my mind is probably: accountability. The traditional infrastructure of publishing houses, agents, and editors (whatever faults it may have) gives authors credibility and oversight. Who provides fact-checking and vetting for self-pubbed? Who stands behind them? How can I be assured of their authority and legitimacy? I can't afford to waste my time reading someone's 'creative interpretation' of either facts or history.
It is egregious as well, to ask me to read something which hasn't been professionally edited, proofread, and checked for plagiarism. I simply don't want a book in my hands which has been produced by an amateur or a dabbler.
I'll go further: if some people want to imagine that cinema-quality movies are to be found uploaded to Youtube by people using handheld cameras; that's fine. If some people want to download ringtones from some new garage-formed indie boy band and call that an improved music industry? I can't prevent that either. Let movies and music degenerate into a public free-for-all, if it must. Books are different. Or, they ought to be. Instead of Youtube, I will go without cinema and instead of Limewire/iTunes I will pledge $$ to my city's symphony orchestra and instead of eBooks I will fight to my last breath for the printed page.
To my way of thinking: you don't recklessly tamper with a nation's publishing infrastructure merely to lower-the-rungs-on-the-ladder so that anyone with a yen to claim "Hey Mom! I'm a mystery author now" can do so. Want to be an author? Be a professional author then, go 'whole-hog'--just like all your forbears did. Either succeed 100% or fail 100%. But if (for whatever reason) you can't hack it, don't ask or expect that the system to be altered for you. This sounds harsh, but look at the consequences involved if this 'new system' fails? Can we afford it?
I also disagree that a debate like this has to spread-its-net to capture all the little exceptions and nuances like "hey, there were occasional goofs in mass-market books as well". This is far too prone to distortion; far too easy to mis-array peas-against-watermelons. Bullet-point debates offer less than the sum of the parts involved here.
For a cultural transition this sprawling, you can't rest weight on peckish counter-objections or "tit-for-tat". Line up all the 'points for' vs 'points against' on either side of the controversy --and if they come out even (which they won't) --its still not the way to address a proposed 'sea-change' in our reading markets this wild, this drastic, this unpredictable.
The burden of proof is on the proponents-of-this-change to show that a significant and sweeping improvement to the existing status-quo, is being laid on the table. They can not. It is not enough to say that you are trying not to take anything away; it is not enough to say that you think things will stay pretty much the same. There is far more chance that it will all go badly awry; and that our education system by-and-large will be irreparably marred for the sake of a relatively few hobbyists.
In general, of course it is, but it's not always automatically the case.I'm not even sure why there would be an argument about it. A book that has to go through a trial by fire (pre-readers, editors, publisher's assistants, etc) is, on average, going to be of superior quality to one that hasn't had to go through anything.
On the other side, the idea that it is absolutely impossible for someone who wrote a very good book to choose to self-publish is silly.
Daniel wrote: "On the other side, the idea that it is absolutely impossible for someone who wrote a very good book to choose to self-publish is silly. ..."I don't think anyone's saying that. There were always authors who self-published long before the digital age. Some of them became classics.
What I think I'm saying is, we ought not to reverse-engineer traditional publishing infrastructure to favor self-pubbers now that they merely have quick-click tools to let them publish themselves in droves.
Are Mark Twain's books inherently inferior? Balderdash! The question is as stupid as they get, a relic from the traditional publisher monopoly days.
I keep hearing the old myth that a fiction writer cannot self-edit. Over the years I've learned many editing skills through teaching writing, editing the work of others and lastly editing my own novels. By learning editing skills (which any writer can do) I've become a better writer and the work is closer to what I've intended/imagined. I broke in with Konrath on a little usenet board. He didn't have a "team" back when he made his first 3 book deal, but now can afford one. Me, I prefer to be a "Total Indie," doing all aspects from drafting/revision/editing to cover design and marketing. Any intelligent scribbler can do the same.
David wrote: "Are Mark Twain's books inherently inferior? Balderdash! The question is as stupid as they get, a relic from the traditional publisher monopoly days."No, the question is perfectly reasonable and valid. To follow your (somewhat strange?) assumption, we'd have to all agree that nothing in the world has changed since Mark Twain's time; that audiences haven't altered, that authors are still writing the exact same kinds of works Twain had the opportunity to write; and that publishing history, technology, and even American culture itself have all stood still. That is hardly the case. Massive change has been occurring at a steady pace since the 1850s in all of these last-mentioned areas, as we all well know.
'Traditional publisher days' --? I see a definite sneer in your voice when you muttered this phrase. You also speak as if it has all been annulled. Well--in point of fact-- traditional publishing is still the gold-standard, the most stable, the most reliable, and the most successful form of publishing we have. Self-publishing-- via Amazon and Smashwords-- has a long way to go before it can be mentioned in the same breath.
Traditional publishing is what built the very society you're living in: whereas, you couldn't repeat the last 150 years of American culture had e-books been in place. And if we ever have to rebuild our culture from scratch, it can't be done that way either.
David wrote: "I keep hearing the old myth that a fiction writer cannot self-edit. Over the years I've learned many editing skills through teaching writing, editing the work of others and lastly editing my own no..."It is by-and-large true. You can't dismiss the accuracy of a maxim because you--one individual--feel it doesn't apply to you. Especially when you're the one rendering your own judgment on the quality with which your products emerge into the market. Who else corroborates this claim? Fair question.
Editing is still going to be the stumbling-block of most self-pub authors, regardless of their intelligence. A lot of other factors naturally come into play: their energy, their ambition; their time; their ability to learn; etc etc
Feliks wrote: "Daniel wrote: "On the other side, the idea that it is absolutely impossible for someone who wrote a very good book to choose to self-publish is silly. ..."I don't think anyone's saying that. Ther..."
My point wasn't really about whether self publishing is net good or bad, though perhaps that's what this thread was meant to discuss rather than whether one is inherently worse or not.
My point was just that I feel like the answer to the specific question of the thread is self-evident.
David wrote: "I keep hearing the old myth that a fiction writer cannot self-edit. Over the years I've learned many editing skills through teaching writing, editing the work of others and lastly editing my own no..."I self-edit until my drafts are all sparkly and polished, but--like most authors--it's difficult to see what's actually on the page and what the author thinks they wrote. My proofreader told me that my work was remarkably clean, but she'd still find the occassional 'the the' or typo, so I'm sure that when the author cannot find fault anymore, a good proofreader can.
David wrote: "I keep hearing the old myth that a fiction writer cannot self-edit. Over the years I've learned many editing skills through teaching writing, editing the work of others and lastly editing my own no..."It is not a myth, it is functioning reality. The primary problem is that the writer sees what s/he thought they wrote, often missing what they actually did write. I am a editor - traditional, not for indies - with an advanced degree in English as well as more than two decades of professional experience. I am regarded as very proficient by many professionals in the publishing industry, but I will not rely on my own skills, I hand my own work on to other professionals.
James, as a traditional editor, you have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the ideas that even pros need another set of editorial eyes. The ebook revolution is upon us. I respectfully submit that not only can a writer learn editing skills (as Twain did; somethings do not change, and one is the potential of the human mind), but that beta readers and even readers of books today can offer authoritative advice for the writer. I care a lot more about what most readers think of my books than I would about an editor who's getting paid to offer advise.
There's the myth that writers universally are afflicted with a sort of "snow blindness"--able to see only what was intended not what was written. This may be so if the time between the drafting/revision and the next pass is a short one. But as I've noted many times when reading print trad books, the elusive typo or missing word can be found. A writer has so many advantages over any other reader, editor or not, when it comes to editing/revising his work. The changes may even come years later, as many writers often go back and read their early work with fresh eyes. I know. I've done it myself. I'm no genius but I can learn new skills; learn editing skills, and don't buy into the myth that only someone else can catch errors. I used beta readers mostly to offer their take on the story itself, the plotting, and how the episode fits into the series. For those things they help a great deal.I know many here will disagree with me; I'm not into changing anyone's mind. I would suggest however, that common knowledge often misses the mark in every instance. Stereotypes even include a dollop of truth, but it doesn't mean they're infallible.
Pulp Fiction
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.A. Konrath (other topics)Barry Eisler (other topics)
Donald Hamilton (other topics)
Lee Child (other topics)
Roger Zelazny (other topics)
http://bit.ly/Qwi83d
Thanks.
Gamal