Support for Indie Authors discussion
Archived Author Help
>
Standards and gatekeepers
I believe that if you want your book to be successful it need professional editing. I also believe it need professional cover illustrations. You will have to PAY for these services. Your friends help but are not enough.The difference is these people work for you. You don't work for them.
Gatekeepers are over-rated. Lots of crap make it past gatekeepers.
I strongly disagree with the notion of gatekeepers. I don't care who you are, what level of education you have, or what your command of your native tongue may or may not be, if you have a story to tell, tell it. Once a product is on the market, a measure of responsibility falls onto the consumer. No one has to make a blind purchase. There is the blurb and a sample readily available. Beyond that, if a customer does decide to purchase a book without utilizing these resources and they find it to be lacking, most companies have a very generous return policy.
I will also go ahead and disagree with Martin's assessment that the only path to success requires paying for services. Plenty of indies have made a successful career out of being 100% independent.
Also, past the blurb, Amazon has a "Look Inside" feature, which you can read up to 20% of the book for free to decide if it's for you. I can usually tell by 20% if I am going to stick with it. And...there are reviews, which may help influence the consumer.
We already have a gatekeeper. It is called marketing. It is the toughest gatekeeper imaginable. Let the indie writers write, publish, succeed or fail on their own. Sure, it is tough to create a book, get it edited, get a proper book cover, and try to make it through the labyrinth of the marketing world. Marketing alone is the cruelest gatekeeper an indie author can face.
Morris
We already have a gatekeeper. It is called marketing. It is the toughest gatekeeper imaginable. Let the indie writers write, publish, succeed or fail on their own. Sure, it is tough to create a book, get it edited, get a proper book cover, and try to make it through the labyrinth of the marketing world. Marketing alone is the cruelest gatekeeper an indie author can face.
Morris
I too am very happy the gatekeepers have gone. Yes there is now a lot of crap about, but there are also a few quite brilliant books that would probably not have been commercially published - and they are very cheap to buy, at least for e-reader.If I am buying, I also use the Look Inside feature - I'm a lot less likely to buy if it's not available - and look at the reviews and see if they are genuine; you can usually tell.
Incidentally, Neil, I have just looked at your page and the similarities between our careers are almost spooky!
I am going to play the Devil's Advocate. I'm not a very good one, mind.I tend to think that gatekeepers are generally a force for good. At least, the principle is a good one.
How many 12 year old's mothers would be trying to sell their homework without gatekeepers? (Keep in mind that when I state this, I was a 12 year old storyteller, and I don't regret at all waiting as long as I did to publish.)
However, I do think there is a major question of standards. Gatekeepers today are too concerned with the amount of money going into their own pockets, and not concerned enough with the sorts of books that should be published and the sorts of books that shouldn't.
I think if they started to think along these lines, they would stop searching for the next Twilight and start searching for a good story with merit. (Apologies, Twilight fans, but this writer despises all things Twilight.)
Albeit, this would mean that we would have more traditionally published stories out there, but in the long run, I'd like to think that it would stabilize.
If, for example, a writer could trust that his work was being judged on quality alone rather than the the types of stories the writer is competing with (I have a desire for my stories to be read, but I have markedly little desire to compete with this week's NYT Bestseller), I, for one, might have been more willing to wait for a decent agent and publisher.
In other words, if gatekeepers did their job the way they should, I would support them fully.
I too would like other people to decide what is available to me to read before I even have a choice in the matter.That is what a "gatekeeper" does.
I think there's a place for gatekeepers. As an indie writer, I appreciate that there are places for me to publish my work and make it available for sale. However, I take pride in having integrity in what I do and putting out the best quality I can. There's a major problem on Amazon with people putting up public domain work, stuff copied right out of wikipedia, or even taking someone else's fanfiction and publishing it as original work. Amazon shuts this down when they catch it, but a lot goes through. If there was some sort of screening process to get even independently-published work onto online marketplaces, this would go a long way to ensuring that the only independent books on the marketplace are ones that are original work of the authors.
Look at it from the other side. If you knew that someone was ruining your reputation before anyone ever gave you a chance, wouldn't it irk you just a bit? When a book has so much wrong with it that it should have been kept out of print, but the writer jumps in and then claims he was "Indie Published", what does that do for your reputation or mine as Indie Authors?
Iffix wrote: "Look at it from the other side. If you knew that someone was ruining your reputation before anyone ever gave you a chance, wouldn't it irk you just a bit? When a book has so much wrong with it that..."That's why I like a screening process. Smashwords has a bit of one. You can put up just about anything on just the Smashwords site itself. But for their 'premium' catalogue, which gets passed around to Ibooks and Barnes and Noble, etc., the books have to meet standards. They have to be formatted properly, and meet certain content guidelines.
It can be argued that even some traditionally-published books bring down genres anyhow. When I tell people I write erotica, the first thing I hear is "Fifty Shades of Grey."
Personally, I despise that series. Setting aside the poor quality of the writing, the terrible pacing, the cringe-worthy one-liners, (this is all my personal opinion; I do understand that there are people who enjoyed the series and felt that the writing was good) there's also the subject matter itself. It glamorizes a terribly manipulative, abusive relationship. And countless women (and some men) have looked at that book and thought that sort of behavior equals love.
Even though I don't write like that, it's immediately assumed that all erotica is just about weak-willed women who like getting smacked around by billionaires. (I once made the mistake of telling a date what I do for a living... BAD idea).
But I can't shut down the Fifty Shades juggernaut. All I can do is put out the best book I can write. And I hope that eventually the wheat will rise above the chaff, and people will see indie authors for what they truly can be.
I'm sure all will agree that the good thing about traditional publishers is that not very good stuff gets filtered out, and the bad thing is that the standards for what is bad or good are pretty hidebound at this point. That's why indie is so great! I think gatekeepers will develop - there are already sites like Bookbub which have a filtering effect. I'm all for indie publishing, even if there is a lot of not-so-good stuff. Everybody learns how to write by writing, so let'em publish it and have something to show.
Chris wrote: "I'm sure all will agree that the good thing about traditional publishers is that stuff gets"Ooh, is this a finish-the-sentence game?
I'm going to go with "the good thing about traditional publishers is that stuff gets... tossed into the Goblet of Fire!"
(Yes I'm a little goofy tonight.)
Chris wrote: "I'm sure all will agree that the good thing about traditional publishers is that not very good stuff gets filtered out, and the bad thing is that the standards for what is bad or good are pretty hi..."No fair, you edited it! Totally took away my joke!
Charles wrote: "I too would like other people to decide what is available to me to read before I even have a choice in the matter.That is what a "gatekeeper" does."
I hope you're being sarcastic. :P
I'm old and intelligent enough to make my own decision on what I like to read and what I don't. Who needs a gatekeeper to choose the books and genres they want to read? Indies' imagination goes far beyond the 'supposedly' norm. I'm happy to read those odd stories that might not have made the cut otherwise. I was tired of the same old same old the trad pubs were offering. Enough that I had practically stopped reading. Nothing in mortar and stone libraries appealed to me anymore aside from rare exceptions. Now there's so many to choose from, I can be picky if I want to. :P
I believe in standards though.
G.G. wrote: "Charles wrote: "I too would like other people to decide what is available to me to read before I even have a choice in the matter.That is what a "gatekeeper" does."
I hope you're being sarcastic..."
I was. :) I can be my own gatekeeper.
That's a nice way to look at it, G.G. Freedom of choice! Power to the people!Picasso was once considered horrible and disgusting, because he didn't conform to what the establishment believed that 'art' should be. How long has the music industry been at war with itself, artists against producers, government in the middle of it all, trying to establish who gets to decide what music should sound like? 'Surf music' was created in part as a reaction against political folk music, to guide the minds of teenagers away from thinking about politics and rebelling and changing the system, and encourage them into more suitable pursuits of parties and beaches instead.
History has taught us that the consumers will have their way. Independent thinkers will find voices that reflect their values, even if they have to hunt for them.
Sorry Jenyck... Darn iPad - not good for comments.
Chris wrote: "Sorry Jenyck... Darn iPad - not good for comments."Well, you did give me an opening to throw in a Harry Potter reference, so I can be grateful for that. :) Alohamora!
Jenycka wrote: "I think there's a place for gatekeepers. As an indie writer, I appreciate that there are places for me to publish my work and make it available for sale. However, I take pride in having integrity i..."I would say that's more quality control than a gatekeeper. I don't want to see a bunch of scam pamphlets being sold as How-to guides anymore than I want to see potentially dangerous merchandise on the shelves in my local grocer.
When I think gatekeeper, I think more along thr lines of judging the subjective quality of the work and I am including grammar and editing issues in as subjective. If a mom wants to post her kid's homework, that's fine. If a redditor wants to anthologize his poorly written creepy pasta and call it horror, that's fine. If a college student wants to write anatomically baffling dinosaur erotica and make more money than all of us collectively, that's fine. That guy who just filled several pages with the letter A? That was a troll. That's the kind of stuff people should and do report.
The first time we have to pass a litmus test to publish our work, we are no longer indie authors.
Today's Gatekeepers are not about anything except money. Can we ride the author to get cash out of him. A large slice of cash.The time to go with a big publishing house is when your smaller slice of the pie is out of a WAY bigger pie because of their marketing machine and retail relationships.
Christina wrote: " I would say that's more quality control than a gatekeeper. I don't want to see a bunch of scam pamphlets being sold as How-to guides anymore than I want to see potentially dangerous merchandise on the shelves in my local grocer.When I think gatekeeper, I think more along thr lines of judging the subjective quality of the work and I am including grammar and editing issues in as subjective. If a mom wants to post her kid's homework, that's fine. If a redditor wants to anthologize his poorly written creepy pasta and call it horror, that's fine. If a college student wants to write anatomically baffling dinosaur erotica and make more money than all of us collectively, that's fine. That guy who just filled several pages with the letter A? That was a troll. That's the kind of stuff people should and do report. ."
I agree with you. I don't care what sort of stories are put out there, as long as they are original works and not plagiarized. That's people's own business. If I don't want to read it, I won't. I don't like certain books, even within my own genre, but I don't dispute the author's right to publish them. Even if they are full of spelling errors and stuff.
****The only caveat I place upon content is that I don't believe that anything that sexually exploits children (kiddie porn, how-to guides for pedos) should be published.
Gatekeeper=Elite group of censors!I am for freedom of speech. Everybody gets to speak. Everyone gets to publish.
Of course, the catch is that there will be a LOT of published work, some of it much the same.
Some of the published work will be "dross." I regret that many of us indies will be judged by this.
The market will be flooded. You will fight to be "found."
While writing my first book. I read "77 Reasons Why Your Book Was Rejected"
by Mike Nappa 77 Reasons Why Your Book Was Rejected
It was a good (4 star?) not great book. It certainly told me why many authors make classic mistakes, but it let the "cat out of the bag" and in kind of self defeating way admitted that trad publishers are not concerned about quality etc. they are concerned about profit and "sellability."
He admitted that many great books are kicked into the long grass for reasons that are not to do with the story!
The big admission that made me not even begin the trad publisher merry go round, was that rather than "the book" being judged on its merit,, a BIG factor in the process was author "platform."
Who the author is! Is he/she pretty? Is she/he famous? Does she/have a ready set of buyers.
I can't quote exactl but he said something like, "certain people only have to blow their nose in a tissue, and someone will publish it." (Why do celebrities end up writing a book, and get free slots on TV to promote it?)
I decided then and there to go indie!
Such gatekeepers, I do not want.
..My book will be judged by the readers.
I accept that I have to work to promote it. I accept that it may not achieve the readership it "deserves." I accept that it may not be found.
I know that "dross" will be quickly labelled as such.
I know that I am competeing with good books and good writers (like yourselves). Yet, here we are cooperating! Telling each other what worked for us.
No, keep your gatekeepers!
Let us speak!!
Anthony wrote: "Gatekeeper=Elite group of censors!I am for freedom of speech. Everybody gets to speak. Everyone gets to publish.
Of course, the catch is that there will be a LOT of published work, some of it ..."
I love this comment, Anthony.
There are a number of different perspectives on this question, but before I get started, I thought this was interesting: http://www.hughhowey.com/gatekeepers-...The arguments regarding gatekeepers essentially fall into two main categories:
the philosophical arguments, which tend to hinge on "only use your powers for good" and the pragmatic arguments which tends to hinge of "power corrupts". Then you get the "wisdom of the collective" vs the "wisdom of the individual", and the "there oughta be a law" impulse.
All these approaches are in conflict, and all of them in isolation are bad. The tension between them fluctuates until a stable point is found and then things settle down until a new force kicks the supports out -- which indie publishing just did -- and the whole process starts over. In the end, we get what we get.
Practically, that's what happens and it's never "ideal". But what does "ideal" mean? There are some things the vast majority of people get behind as being good or bad: where "good" can be defined in clear enough terms that is can reasonably be called objective.
Books are not one of those things. There are really no "good" books; there are books we as individuals like. What there are (for lack of a better term) are "honest" books and "dishonest" books. The former are those written in good faith. The latter are those written with some dishonest intent (plagiarizing, passing off public domain work as one's own, deliberate misrepresentation, libelous work, etc).
In this latter case, we are talking about filtering, just as we are with work that crosses the line into illegality. Filtering is a mechanical function does not pass judgment on a books esthetic value. It should happen (and does, though obviously not perfectly) and is easily defined and constrained.
It's when gatekeeping and standards expand into the esthetic that things get divisive. It not just that people disagree, it's also where they got the impressions over which they disagree.
One on the biggest issues, when it comes to indie publishing, is the notion that independently published work is poor quality. Where did this notion come from and how did it get to be so widespread? It did not come from people reading our work. The majority of people who believe this have not read enough of our work to form a truly considered opinion on this question.
They believe this because they have been told this by other people (such parties allied with the Big 5 publishers) who have for years been pushing this line to delegitimize the competition. They have been aided in this by the counterproductive behavior of some indie authors, who are trying to find an advantage in this competition. They have also been aided in this by industry foibles (such as the emphasis on certain cover styles) that have become rooted in the public mind as icons of "professionalism".
The desired outcome for those who wish us ill is to create the impression that indie authors produce badly written, badly edited work with crude covers that deserve to be mocked and never sells. In some cases, this leads to a call for gatekeepers to "improve" this reputation. In other cases, it leads to misguided emphasis on some types of marketing.
The problem is that all this ignores the reality of the success of indie publishing. As a group, we are doing extraordinarily well, without gatekeepers and despite what "everyone knows". We -- as a group and individually -- need to resist the mutterings and calumnies out there that "other indies authors" are besmirching our reputations, making it hard for us to be taken seriously, and that this is why we find commercial success elusive. Whether consciously intended or not, such statements undermine our confidence and amount to a "divide and conquer" strategy. This tends to affect us more than readers: readers don't go to author conferences, they don't follow what the mouthpieces of the Big 5 say, they don't follow articles about indie author earnings, and debates about the evolution of the industry. We (some more than others) do.
Therefore, while the reading public has a general notion that indie authors as a class are "low quality" they continue to buy our books in increasing numbers. As with many things, the general opinion of the group is at odds with the specific opinions about individual members of said group.
So as a practical matter, I think gatekeepers (beyond the filtering function) are a solution in search of a problem: they will neither improve sales in our share f the industry (which is growing) or repair our reputation with people who don't like us because we are competition and/or represent something "new & radical".
On the personal level, we are all our own gatekeepers and we can band together with others of like mind to keep our collective gate. As long as this doesn't devolve into open warfare (which can happen), this is a fine thing. There is no need to formalize this, we can do a splendid job by ourselves. The desire to formalize the gatekeeping function needs to consider the question: "What side of the gate do I deserve to be on?" As most authors will answer "the good side", what then happens when the gatekeeper that have been put in place disagrees?
Is placing our publishing fate in the hands of some anointed others really what we want? How will it help us achieve the success we desire, when we ourselves are excluded?
And -- with apologies Martin because no, I don't think you need to pay for those services; it may be beneficial for some to do so, but it is not a blanket requirement -- we can help each other produce the best possible work, and present in best possible way, on our own terms.
This group has been outstanding for that. Long may it last.
Mod
Good. Let's keep it that way.
Human beings are funny little monsters, aren't they? They say they want freedom, you give them some freedom and they start wishing they could be controlled.
A lot of people have asked, "Why do you write?" in a lot of different ways and I've given a lot of different answers. One of the top ones, though, would have to be this: I write the kind of books I want to read. There is no other author out there quite like me and I want books out there that are written by an author quite like me. I don't want the fate of those books in the hands and eyes of some gatekeeper that just don't like my style or doesn't quite get what I'm trying to do.
Neil wrote: "standards of what makes good writing"
I hate to call something impossible, but this comes close. "Good" is an opinion, opinions are subjective. So, whose opinion do we base these standards on? Mine? Yours?
Neil wrote: "As one post said, the good thing about the self-publishing revolution is that anyone can publish anything; and the bad thing about the self-publishing revolution is that anyone can publish anything."
This seems to get said a lot. It used to be said a lot by traditionally published authors that want to look down on Indie authors. It's a bit sad that Indie authors are now echoing it. But, again, "good" and "bad" are subjective. Have I read any Indie work that I didn't care for? Sure. But, I've read plenty of traditionally published work that I didn't care for, too. Stuff that was filtered through "gatekeepers". Stuff that should have been "good".
Neil wrote: "If a writer can’t spell, doesn’t observe basic rules of grammar, and has a limited vocabulary, the book will be unreadable."
"Can't" is a nasty little word. How about "if a writer hasn't yet learned to spell"? In which case, said writer could learn to spell. Said writer could have his stories proof-read and edited.
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" did not observe any "rules" of grammar that you or I were taught in school. It seems to have done all right anyway.
A writer only needs a vocabulary big enough to be able to tell a story. Dr. Seuss used only fifty words, small and easy ones at that, to write "Green Eggs and Ham". And, frankly, we all have a "limited" vocabulary. There is a finite number of words at play in the world. I don't know them all. I'm sure you don't, either. Personally, when I pick up a story in which the author is cashing in a lot of uncommon, multisyllabic I feel that they aren't as interested in telling a story as they are impressing their audience with their vocabulary.
Neil wrote: "At the other extreme, of course if everyone obeyed all the rules all the time, we’d never get anything new."
Right. So, don't worry about "rules". After all, every writer has his or her ideas about "rules" and every reader has his or her "rules" for what makes a good story. You can't possibly follow all these unspoken, unwritten rules, so why bother?
Neil wrote: "There may not be a science about what makes good writing, but there is a craft."
Ah, yes! I agree with this. Focus on rules makes writing seem too mechanical and scientific. Writing is an art, not a science.
Neil wrote: "There are reasons why it’s not good to repeat the same words close together..."
Well, again, "good" is subjective, but I think there are times when a repeated word can be used for an interesting effect. It will help push an idea into your reader's mind, for one. Granted, it would be advisable not to make a habit of it, but some repeated words can add an interesting flavor to your work.
Neil wrote: "why it is good to show rather than tell"
I do both.
Neil wrote: "Editors and agents are, on the one hand, just people with opinions, but, on the other hand, it’s their business to know what works and what sells, so their opinions carry more weight than those of friends and family."
This may be true for you and some other writers, but it's certainly not true for me. I run my ideas by my wife, my coworkers, the other mods here, friends I've met here on Goodreads... people that know my personality and my work.
Neil wrote: "Personally, as a writer who is also reader, I think we need our gatekeepers."
I don't think it's wise to think for other writers. If you need a gatekeeper, that's fine. I don't really have one, unless I count as my own gatekeeper. I mentioned I run ideas by my wife, the other mods, etc. but I don't necessarily trash the idea if they say they don't like it. In the end, I decide what works I publish and what ones need to wait a while.
"Editors and agents are... just people with opinions, but ... it’s their business to know what works and what sells, so their opinions carry more weight than those of friends and family..."I want to comment on this, because it is a common belief. What is the support for it? Consider this: I've been told that Dune, now widely regarded as a sci-fi classic, was rejected 20 or more times. That means 95% (or more) of the paid professionals who saw it, completely blew it. How much rejection did J.K. Rowling experience before she made almost a billion dollars?
So statistically, how well do editors and agents at picking work that becomes a commercial success? This question is impossible to answer rigorously, because there's no way to know how many Dunes and Harry Potter's are out there that the author did not submit that one last time. Given the high failure rate of traditionally published fiction books, it is reasonable to assume that many commercially viable works were rejected. But since we never got to see those rejected works, how is it possible to judge how they stacked up against works that were accepted?
The odds against commercial success are long, no matter what. But a glance at the overall picture is illuminating. How many authors were there in 1980 or 1980 making a living off their fiction writing? I've heard various estimates, but they are all small numbers.
How many are there now? A glance through the Amazon bestseller lists suggests there are quite a few more than there used to be. And that suggests the traditional publishing industry was probably under-serving the market: that there was much more commercially viable fiction than the professionals thought there was (or is).
Given the overall success of indie fiction and the number of indie authors making 5 & 6 figures a year, I don't think a compelling case can be made that publishing industry professionals have any better idea of what is "good" fiction or what will sell than anyone else. Based on current results, it appears to me that the practical value of their expertise is approximately zero.
To give the foregoing some perspective, consider this: Pick a reasonable metric for commercial success. For example, that might be a book earning out it's advance (which could be as low as $3,000, in some cases.) Calculate the percentage of indie published books that meet that threshold. Now calculate the percentage of traditionally published books that meet that threshold. Which is larger?
Many people might think (and some assert) the latter is larger, because they divide the number of successes by the published books in each group. But that's wrong.
For traditional publishing, the success rate is the number of successes divided by the number of books submitted to a publisher or an agent. The act of submitting a book is equivalent to hitting the "publish" button on KDP (or wherever). So all of those books count as "fail" against the traditional publisher's success rate.
On the other side, indie author's book do not go out of print. So the number of successes (and thus the success ratio) increases with time. Traditional publishers take book out of print and therefore curtail their chance to succeed, often in a year or less.
Now which number is larger? We can't say without knowing many manuscripts are submitted and rejected, but it's clear that traditional publishing has a failure rate vastly greater than it appears if only published books are (erroneously) considered.
Even if we use a uniform timescale (a book must earn X amount in a year), I'd go out on a limb (based on Amazon's bestseller lists) and say the success rates are close to the same in both cases, and in some genres, I think indie authors have an edge. (Given the earning data, indie authors may have more success overall.)
I'll end this by saying that traditional publishing can offer some advantages, but an increased chance that a book will sell well is not one of them. As gatekeepers, they don't seem to add any value to the market.
Note: I want to make clear[er], I'm talking about fiction. Nonfiction is different. I can't write a book on physics or WWI and just make stuff up and tell people it's all true. If I do that, I'm lying. If I write a book purporting to tell people how to sail around the world that is all untried opinion and fabrication, such that it might get people killed if they abide by it, I'm a menace. To the extent gatekeepers have a place, this is it.
I should pipe up here that as much as I tend to blast Fifty Shades, I am grateful for the success of that series because it really did help open up the erotica market into the mainstream. EL James, love of creepy abusers and all, did help pave the way for me and those like me. So I have to be grateful for that.
Jenycka wrote: "And Owen, hi! It's been a long time!"Indeed. You've been missed.
Owen wrote: "Jenycka wrote: "And Owen, hi! It's been a long time!"Indeed. You've been missed."
I've missed being here. Health crisis is over, so I'm back in action!
Anthony wrote: "..My book will be judged by the readers.
I accept that I have to work to promote it. I accept that it may not achieve the readership it "deserves." I accept that it may not be found.
I know th..."
Thank you, Anthony. My sentiments exactly.
It would be an invalid assumption to think that writers that work for big publishing house do not have to work to promote the book.They are in fact obligated via contracts to market the book. One author I know says he feels like a dancing monkey for an organ grinder.
Once again, you work for them.
My book made a profit the day I sold the first copy.
Martin wrote: "It would be an invalid assumption to think that writers that work for big publishing house do not have to work to promote the book."Yes, I've read in a number of places that mid-list genre fiction authors are expected to do essentially all the promotion for their work. It appears the publisher's promotional efforts are reversed for top-tier authors (who still may have some responsibilities).
I don't know the extent, but at least some established mid-list authors have bought their rights back and are going the indie route, for that and other reasons.
To add to Dune and 50 Shades of Gray and Harry Potter:Once upon a time, an unknown author submitted an idea to a well known author that was making a compilation of shorts about super heroes. The unknown author didn't have the credentials to break into the known author's inner circle. The known author wanted someone that had to work for their success, just as they did. The unknown author was rejected, and took his idea to DC Comics where for the next 15 years he enjoyed even more success than the author that had rejected him...until recently.
Those authors were Neil Gaiman, who pitched the idea for Sandman to George RR Martin for his Wildcard series. Had he not been rejected by Martin, he would have never had the commercial success he has enjoyed since then.
And Martin did not come close to matching Gaiman's success until HBO picked up A Song of Ice and Fire.
Mod
While I feel that there is a good deal of paranoia about gatekeepers, it's undeniable that mainstream publishing houses won't touch certain genres with a barge pole. My other half once submitted a novel about two women who had fallen in love at uni and their various escapades down the years as they split up, got back together etc, told in non chronological order but with the dates clearly marked. It was a terrific story, enjoyed by everybody who'd read it or heard extracts, but it was rejected on the grounds it was "too complicated."My other half shelved the book, saying maybe they had a point. The following year there was a boom in stories with very similar set ups, the only difference being that the lovers were a heterosexual couple. Perhaps this is me being negative, but that looks an awful lot like homophobia - or at least a false belief that a lesbian love story won't sell.
Mod
Possibly, but I'd guess it's more likely they're only thinking of the money. A story of a straight couple is likely to sell better than one of a lesbian couple. It's likely more a stance for safe money than against homosexuality. Just one of many reasons it's good that we have Indie publishing so books like your other half's can be presented to the public.
That's a pretty resounding no to gatekeepers, though not, I hope, standards.I agree with those of you who say that where there are no gatekeepers, they will develop naturally, and that indeed they are already developing. Goodreads itself is one such.
Because consider the parallel with newsmedia, which were transformed earlier than book publishing. For a while, since anybody could be a journalist, and lots did, the Net filled up with a radical democracy of news-sources and viewpoints. Do we use this resource? Of course we don't, because most of it is ill-informed, often based on rumour and conjecture. New curated websites emerged where readers could understand the point of view of the publication and have some assurance of the quality of the publication.
The same thing is happening with book publishing now. Sure there's a lot of crap out there, but it's becoming a lot easier to ignore, in the same way we can with news.
I'm not an agent or a publisher, but I feel bound to stick up to some degree for the traditional gatekeepers. Of course they want to make money, and of course this sometimes leads to some inartistic decisions. Do they make mistakes? Sure. But those that I have met are, in the main, motivated by loving writing and wanting to get good writing out there.
One last comment, to Mike, yes it is indeed spooky how similar our life paths have been
Neil wrote: "That's a pretty resounding no to gatekeepers, though not, I hope, standards."Whose standards though? I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please refrain from comments like "there's a lot of crap out there" as it goes against everything this group stands for.
Ethical standards, yes. As Jenycka pointed out, we don't want to see illegal content, plagiarism, or lazy get rich schemes crowding out legitimate books. But if someone wants to put out a book that doesn't conform to popular standards of grammar, content, or some other subjective criteria, I say let them. This is not a reflection of all indie authors and to hang our success on how others are viewed is absurd.
If I went out for pizza and had a bad experience with one pizza joint, I might never go back, but I'm sure as hell not going to give up pizza. Readers aren't going to stop reading because they didn't enjoy a book either. And before you correct me and say that they will swear off 'indie' authors, remember that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Goodreads is full of squeaky wheels. Most readers pay little if any attention to who the publisher of a book might be.
Mod
Neil.
"Crap" is just a matter of opinion and calling the work of others "crap" is not what Support for Indie Authors is about. If you find a book that you think is "crap", don't buy it. Don't recommend it to friends. It's that simple. But, it's no reason to start calling for some "standards" in Indie publishing just because you find some of it "crap".
And like I asked before and Christina asked above - whose "standards" do we go by?
I think you have a mighty good question. I believe there should be standards. I don't wish to be the one to set them. But I think it is sad that the current trends and standards have made it such that many hardworking and brilliant writers need to go indie because of poor decisions of agents and publishers.
Mod
So, who should? My answer is this: The reader. Let the reader set their own standards. Let the reader decide what is brilliant and what is "crap". Let the reader decide what to buy and what not to buy. Let the reader think for him or herself. Who better to decide what is right for the reader to read than the reader?
That poses a different question, Dwayne. As already mentioned, how long is a reader supposed to be patient with (...) before giving up on indie books entirely? (...) means what you think it means. I respect your wishes not to use that word on this thread, though there is plenty out there.
Not saying that traditional publishing doesn't release plenty of (...) of their own.But we as Indie authors already have enough of a current to swim through without having to worry about who peed in the pool.
I personally haven't read any of these crappy indie authors everyone is referring to. If the sample is unreadable, I don't read it.
Let’s get rid of some obvious outliers. Of course there are some standards. If a writer can’t spell, doesn’t observe basic rules of grammar, and has a limited vocabulary, the book will be unreadable. At the other extreme, of course if everyone obeyed all the rules all the time, we’d never get anything new. It’s the role of genius to break the mould and innovate.
So that leaves those of us in the middle, who’re not geniuses and who have some basic command of the language. There may not be a science about what makes good writing, but there is a craft. There are reasons why it’s not good to repeat the same words close together, why it is good to show rather than tell, why plots and characters that readers enjoy have certain common attributes.
Editors and agents are, on the one hand, just people with opinions, but, on the other hand, it’s their business to know what works and what sells, so their opinions carry more weight than those of friends and family. They're not always right, but they are gatekeepers of standards, based on their experience. And the people they’re the gatekeepers for are the readers.
It’s hard, it’s really hard, to believe in your own work and at the same time to be able to hear criticism. There will always be work that breaks the rules and which still sells. And, honestly, some of it isn’t that great. Personally, as a writer who is also reader, I think we need our gatekeepers. What do others think?