THE Group for Authors! discussion
The Craft
>
Whats the deal with indie authors?
Karla wrote: "First off. I am an avid reader. I was appauled when I found out indie authors were allowed on goodreads. Im sure you agree and might be scared or arent strong enough to admit it but if you cant get..."Okay, I see where you're coming from. I used to think the same thing. It's always been said that everybody has a book in them, and I think that's been construed to mean that 'Anybody can write a book.' And that's TRUE, but not everybody can necessarily write a GOOD book.
But, I changed my mind a couple years ago when, as a writer, I decided to self-publish a few things of my own. Meanwhile, I've won an award for a literary novel, I've been awarded two grants for a non-fiction book, and I've had excerpts published in a minor magazine. Yet ... I'm not a published author. Thing is, I'm confident that someday I will be, because it's freakin' HARD to get published traditionally -- ESPECIALLY if you're writing quality work that isn't genre fiction. With the collapse of 2008, a lot of small presses went under, making literary fiction much harder to sell.
Meanwhile, I'm self-publishing direct to people, and learning how to market. Instead of writing for what I think some editor or judge will appreciate, I'm thinking of what will READERS want. I've recently written a novel just to self-publish it, and I've learned so much about storytelling in the process.
I still agree that there's a lot of work being published that would do better as fan-fiction, but there's also every struggling author as well, learning the ropes. If an author is keeping themselves from self-publishing these days, they're only shooting themselves in the foot.
Until then, Karla ... the Indie industry, in claiming to have taken down or have bypassed the traditional industry, is slowly recreating it. If you were interested in trying work with more quality, I would suggest using 'filter' sites which only accept work of a particular standard in giving recommendations to subscribers. In that way, the lower tier of work is generally weeded out.
In the meantime, I hope some burgeoning talent can change your mind.
I personally love that there's places that give everyone a chance. Goodreads is essentially an opening for a lot of authors, would-be, indie, wellknown... It's a great place to get to know what works and what doesn't.And I know that the publishing industry is a cut-throat business. Just put it this way - did you hear about J.K. Rowling getting published under a pseudonym? It's said that if the publishing company hadn't already known her and her work that it's likely that the pseudonym wouldn't have gotten published, not because it wasn't any good, but because it was an unknown author (and she only got published in the first place because she knew someone who knew someone! Not everyone is a fan of Harry Potter, but few doubt her talent nowadays).
Yeah, not all indie authors are worth all that fake and not-so-fake ink; that's the problem with having an open platform - everyone with access is going to use it. But there are still many good authors out there that just wouldn't get published otherwise.
Sift through all the junk if you have the patience and I'm sure you'll find a few hidden gems. I know I have. :)
Dianne wrote: "I assume Karla's post is a spoof."Well her last series of reviews are all copy and paste one-star so who knows, I'll probably get a one star now given without reading my books because I'm a self-pub. indie is I think slightly different as that is also used to signify non-big six publishing houses.
Philip, I think of 'Indie' and 'self-pub' as different, as well. My first publisher was 'Indie' because they're a small publisher with a specific genre lean. I'm not sure why Karla is so against Indies, but if not for them, only the very few books that are picked up by the Big Six would be available. I read a LOT of both Indies and Self-Pubs, and many of them are very good. I think there are a lot of reasons for people to self-pub; creative control, bad experience with previous publishers, niche market, etc. It's not necessary to paint everyone with the same broad brush.
There's really no excuse for a self-published book to not be just as good as a traditionally published book. All the tools and talent that a traditional publisher uses are readily available. What it takes is discipline to not cut corners and publish before the book is ready. I still have a preference for traditionally published books as they have been filtered, but I do trust the reviews of self-published books when there are enough reviews. In many cases these books are better than the average traditionally published book. In addition the reviews of traditionally published books are to be questioned just as much if not even more, it's not a friend writing the reviews but rather an intern at the publisher.
The numbers make the case for self-publishing. Unless you are already a well known author you are going to be on your own anyway. The authors I know that are with a traditional publisher are doing everything that I am, but for far less of a return and with almost no control.
About the only advantages that come with traditional publishing is getting your book into book stores (fewer of them everyday) and marketing gimmicks (playing with sales numbers or reviews).
In my view (a small view), two things need to happen. The first being that self-published authors need to embrace the concept of team publishing versus self-publishing, hire professionals to assist them with their books.
The second thing is that the way books are currently being discovered and marketed is broken. It's not that books are really any worse than they ever have been, rather that there are more competing entertainment and information alternatives than ever. The cost of conning a reader into parting with their money and time can result in the loss of a life long customer.
Kellie wrote: "I have to admit I'm a bit hurt by what Karla has said about Indie/Self Published authors. I am self published. I tried for years to get an agent to accept my manuscripts but it wasn't because my wo..."Well said!
As another "appauling" (or, dare I say, appalling) self-published author, I was shocked by the tone of the comment. Well, maybe not. But curious. It seemed a tad out of proportion. Nevertheless, I enjoy a good rant and it seemed to generate some response. I hope people check out my little novel. Whether I could have found a legitimate publisher is something I have no idea about. I didn't look. As for my self-publishing route, I used a firm, FriesenPress, to compile the book. They also manage some of the sales. Ultimately though, it is my creation. Here is my website/blog for those who are curious. www.engleson.ca Have a good day.
Kellie wrote: "I have to admit I'm a bit hurt by what Karla has said about Indie/Self Published authors. I am self published. I tried for years to get an agent to accept my manuscripts but it wasn't because my wo..."
I, too, have found errors in traditionally published works. I always wonder how that happens--it literally pulls me out of the story as I contemplate how many professional editors/proofreaders have gone through it and missed seeing them. Self-published authors are blasted for this, but we are lucky to have the freedom to edit at will. Errors are nothing to be ashamed of, so long as the writer is willing to correct them.
Oh, and I checked out your cover. I thought it was lovely.
I, too, have found errors in traditionally published works. I always wonder how that happens--it literally pulls me out of the story as I contemplate how many professional editors/proofreaders have gone through it and missed seeing them. Self-published authors are blasted for this, but we are lucky to have the freedom to edit at will. Errors are nothing to be ashamed of, so long as the writer is willing to correct them.
Oh, and I checked out your cover. I thought it was lovely.
Keep in mind the OP has copy-pasted 1-star reviews on hundreds of books (look at her profile). Obvious troll is obvious. Please, people, don't take the bait.
It's a worry if it's a trend. I know there were some opinions being expressed by a number of reviewers that they will no longer touch indie books, due to the behaviour of some authors and the inability to now shelf books based on author behaviour. Having said that authors attacking reviewers is not limited to indie books.
Kellie wrote: "Elle wrote: "How can you see the profile?"
Click on her name"
Hmmm. I can't see the original post, and the topic from the main page shows only "from a deleted user." Probably for the best, I suppose...
Click on her name"
Hmmm. I can't see the original post, and the topic from the main page shows only "from a deleted user." Probably for the best, I suppose...
Kellie wrote: "Elle wrote: "Kellie wrote: "Elle wrote: "How can you see the profile?"
Click on her name"
Hmmm. I can't see the original post, and the topic from the main page shows only "from a deleted user." P..."
That can be extremely difficult to do, but wise indeed.
Click on her name"
Hmmm. I can't see the original post, and the topic from the main page shows only "from a deleted user." P..."
That can be extremely difficult to do, but wise indeed.
Hi. I'm new to this group. I've been reading the recent comments with interest. I'm a self-published author and, like most, have tried hard to get published in the traditional way. My book was read in full by two big London agencies. Each took four months to return to me a single paragraph of rejection. No feedback. No real reason. Just 'not quite for them'. My book was read in full by an editor at Scholastic Books NY (a personal favour because of a mutual link). Again, I waited almost four months for a few comments that ultimately amounted to a rejection. Now folks, come on, we live in a fast world that's changing at a pace we can barely keep up with. The total waiting time for me for these agents (and I couldn't do a thing with my book until they made their decision) was one year. This does not start to cover the time and money spent in preparing letters and printing chapters etc etc. You all know the drill.The time for waiting is over. Authors may now take power into their own hands. Power has been with the few and FOR the few for a very long time. The tide is turning. A revolution has taken place in the publishing industry as monumental as the invention of the printing press itself. It is a matter of democracy, supply and demand. Whether a book is rubbish/trash or not, the people will decide. And if they prefer rubbish to quality, then they will vote with their cash, and who are we to spend it for them? And who are we to judge? One person's garbage is the treasure of another. So let us not take the literary high-ground in judging self-published authors versus traditionally published authors. The readers don't care where the book is from - they simply have an appetite for reading. And if it isn't good, the reviews will testify to the fact. And if the readers can't tell the difference, then ignorance is bliss. This is an entertainment industry. I'm a musician. A pianist. It amazes me that people will buy Coldplay before Chopin, but there you go! It's about preference, taste.
Self-published authors (good ones) have gone through the refiner's fire and have spent an incredible amount of time and energy on their work, because they had to. No one has given them a deadline. They are driven, dedicated, determined. Let us allow some respect. I know, speaking personally, how hard I've worked.
Tori well said, I also note that the original post and profile has now been deleted, but as we have a forum.I like Chopin and Coldplay!
The industry is changing effectively back to how it began with self published works I can just see Bill Shakespeare reading his rejection letter from a modern publisher.
Dear Bill,
We are sorry to tell you that you proposed work of Romeo and Juliet is not acceptable in its current format. Significant changes are required to the plot such as the removal of the under-age sex, violence and suicide. This is not the type of work we can currently carry. As you know we already have similar writers such as Robert Marlow on our books and we would not wish to impact his potential sales.
Writing in verse is of course challenging to many readers,however, clever it may appear to you, it will significantly limit your potential sales. Your poetry is simplistic and lacks rhythm and we have no interest in your collection of so called sonnets.
As for your proposed plot outline for "A Midsummer's Night Dream", we are not a fantasy publisher but we doubt very much whether such a story with a lead character of a donkey would appeal to anyone.
Please don't trouble us again
Yours etc.
Phillip - brilliant. Laughing very hard here. Well, quite! And no disrespect to Coldplay (I'm utterly delighted that you appreciate the brilliance of Chopin also) I was merely putting a case for personal taste. Because I don't really like pop music, I struggle to see why anyone else does!! Talk about small-minded. On a scale of 1-10, Coldplay along with most others, register at about 1. So when something leaves you so cold, if you'll pardon the pun, it's hard to appreciate the appeal. My husband has never moved on from the 80s, and so I have to endure Joy Division, New Order, U2, Echo and the Bunnymen and all sorts. To coin a crude phrase, it does my head in. But on a scale of 1-10, Rachmaninoff scores about a 1 for him. I pity him. But, it illustrates the point about reading tastes. Love the Dear Bill letter. Still smiling about it.
Tori wrote: "Phillip - brilliant. Laughing very hard here. Well, quite! And no disrespect to Coldplay (I'm utterly delighted that you appreciate the brilliance of Chopin also) I was merely putting a case for pe..."I have odd tastes in music and I suppose many other things... Yes there's Chopin and Coldplay, but Elgar and Holst plus Led Zeppelin, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Eric Clapton. Then there is Jamie Cullum and far to many to mention and because I'm not a big fan of Jazz my wife thinks I have limited taste,still she hates The Sex Pistols and is not keen on The Jam, each to their own.
As for books I swing from the great William Shakespeare through some Dickens, Jane Austin and onwards to Tom Clancy (RIP), Le Carre, Faulks, Mantel, Forsyth, Follet and throw in JKR and again on and on. My own writing has been a thriller, a dystopian catastrophe, and a fictional memoir set in high finance. The world is a very varied place long may it remain so, and I didn't even mention movies/films.
In the end I don't care who produced it, independent, self-pub, bloke down the road, if I don't try it I'll never know so I have a wealth of Indie writers on my kindle waiting for me to read them alongside more famous efforts, just like I have a stack of music I haven't yet listened to. I might hate it I might love it whatever it's genre.
Keep, reading, listening and watching and you never know what you might discover from whatever source.
Amen to that! I have varied taste also. I have to agree with you that John Le Carre and Faulks are fabulous writers. One of my favourite books of all time is Engleby. Brilliant. Birdsong was utterly memorable also. Ken Follet, I admit, I have a few issues with. I absolutely loved The Pillars of the Earth - from a story point of view. His writing-style, however, distracts me. I see Follet as a brilliant historian/story-teller, but not subtle enough for me as a writer. Only my opinion, of course. I love Lee Child. I can enjoy a Jack Reacher story any time. I have to admit to conceding defeat partway through Wolf Hall. I wasn't a seasoned enough historian to grasp it. It relied on O Level history, at least!! I have to also admit to defeat on The Casual Vacancy on the 15th page. I couldn't deal with the language. After Harry Potter, it was a shock too great for my delicate constitution! (my kids tell me what is suitable and not suitable for me on TV - what is going on?)So, I agree Phillip, there is no accounting for taste. People work hard with whatever talent they have. There will be a number of people (large or small) who will appreciate it. As a (self) publisher, it is our duty to find those people and give them what they have been waiting for all their lives! If only!
I have to say, I'm with your wife - I love jazz too. I'm in complete awe of anyone who can improvise well. The skill baffles me and intrigues me, and evades me. Like all forms of raw talent, it can't really be learned. You have it, or you don't. It's the same with music. As a teacher, I cannot put into someone what isn't there. They can come for piano lessons for a hundred years, by if they aint got rhythm, I can't teach it. They will never FEEL it.
Feeling the need to get on with some work instead of enjoying myself here. Catch up with you later.
L.S. wrote: "Karla wrote: "First off. I am an avid reader. I was appauled when I found out indie authors were allowed on goodreads. Im sure you agree and might be scared or arent strong enough to admit it but i..."L.S. What filter sites would you recommend? My novel A Paris Haunting is Awesome Indies approved (not that I've ever read an "awesome" novel...). I'd be interested to know about other sites that filter indie books. Thanks.
Kristine Kathryn Rusch made a lovely post today about standards and gatekeepers:http://kriswrites.com/2013/10/09/the-...
And yes, obvious Troll, and since she's been deleted, don't worry yourself too much about it.
I published through a service like many authors. The process was expensive but I wanted to be proud of the book when I look at it ten years from now. My story is a non-fiction narrative about my son Matthew, a person with developmental disabilities and mental illness. It's been a dream of mine to enlighten people as to the gifts and talents of persons with differences.
I actually had an agent who struck out finding a traditional publisher. She had a few promises to consider the manuscript but nothing ever developed. She found my eventual publisher/editor and I am proud of the result.
I have some friends who have been published the traditional way and they are doing as much work as I am to promote their books.
I'm glad I didn't wait for who knows how long to find a publisher. My book is selling, it's slow going and hard work - but what worthwhile endeavour isn't?
Yes, absolutely!! Well done, Donna. Writing is so time-consuming. I put out my novel in July. It's been well-received. People are asking me when the next one will be out. I feel utterly overwhelmed. As if it happens, just like baking a pie! I had no idea that self-publishing meant just that. I'm learning how to publish my book! Like a child waiting for Father Christmas, I thought that I could just stick it on Amazon and wait for some lovely returns. Oh dear! Learning how to spread the word has been the greatest shock and is taking as much time as the writing used to. I was very happy writing in my own little world. It was quiet and lonely and peaceful. The perfect conditions for good writing. Self-publishing felt like entering an arena. I feel as though I've walked blindly into a huge place full of millions of people and the noise is deafening. I'm constantly distracted and I'm busier that I have ever been in my life. I constantly feel in danger of being trampled to death, but I'm surviving, just.
I have to see it like this: as you pointed out, Donna, being published in the traditional way requires just as much promotion and innovative thinking as self-publishing. I have to remind myself that these are very exciting times to live in; that the opportunities are limitless. The only enemy of my book is me! And so the world is now a stage, and though I'm feeling the stage-fright, I have to gain the courage and the knowledge, to step out in style.
Please get the terms straight. "Indie" is not equivalent to "self-published." Many independent publishers (what used to be called small presses) are publishing houses; they are just smaller or do things differently than the traditional big publishing houses.Also, an author with an indie book, whether self-published or published by a small press, IS a published author! If it's been published, it's been published.
Tori wrote: "Yes, absolutely!! Well done, Donna. Writing is so time-consuming. I put out my novel in July. It's been well-received. People are asking me when the next one will be out. I feel utterly overwhelmed..."The originator of this thread doesn't warrant any more of our concern, and I have avoided this post because i wanted no association with it or her, but we authors have taken an ugly splot and made it empowering. Hurray for us. We are the torch bears of our own words.
I am also self-published. Publication and marketing has been extremely overwhelming. I'm with Tori. I prefer the quiet, solitude of writing, but because I came to love my protagonist, so much, she can still make me cry, I endevour on.
This world of online communication helps, but I now feel I'm spending too much of my precious time chatting. I'll be pulling back in the next few days. Allowing my book space to grow in the most fertile soil I could gather over the last few months. My characters call, and this triology won't write itself.
The main problem is that Trade Publishers are no longer the gatekeepers of quality writing, but the purveyors of mass appeal entertainment. That doesn't mean that they do not produce quality books, but the first question they ask will be 'is this commercially viable?', not 'is this quality writing?'.There are plenty examples of quality writers falling by the wayside through the ignorance of the publishing industry. Read your history on the publication of A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole for such an example.
Well said, Martyn. But money talks and "proven" writers whose books sell rule the market...If we all keep working hard our efforts will pay off.
Like many other writers I feel the need to promote a book I'm proud of and resent all the time and energy it takes!!
Linda, I largely agree with you. But on the distinction between "she published" and "has been published," you might look into how Walt Whitman's work got out. What was published was his work. That he published a lot of it himself does not change the fact that the work was published. Just like a person who eats a carefully prepared gourmet meal and a person who wolfs down a Big Mac both have eaten. You can't say one has eaten and the other hasn't. We can quibble over whether or not a Big Mac is any good, but we can't say it wasn't eaten.By the way, many of the smaller publishers are trying non-traditional models as a way of serving their authors and keeping themselves afloat. We, for example, give very steep discounts to our authors for author copies in lieu of royalties. This is because we publish poetry, and poetry royalties on online sales for most of our authors (no matter how good their work is) are typically less than $10 a year. (In part that's because we routinely give the Kindle editions away to help promote their work.) We know our authors will net more than $10 on the sale of just one book at a reading at the discounts we extend to them, and it's not worth anyone's time to deal with a $10 royalty payment. Especially not when there are more than a handful of authors. And unlike with traditional publishers, our authors don't have to worry about their books being remaindered and taken out of print after a year or less.
Some small publishers try to make a bit of a iiving at what they do, as well they should, but we don't. We all work free, and I work at least 60 hours a week free. It takes a long time to do the editing and design of a book and handle everything that has to be handled. A book is not something you can just slap together, not if your goal is to do it well.
Sure, authors have to watch out for shysters, as they always have. But I think what happens a lot of the time with indie publishers (those that publish other writers' work) is that they start out not realizing how little they know about what they are doing and quickly discover it takes a whole heck of a lot more work to do the job right than they thought when they bit off more than they could chew. It takes decades to develop the skills one needs to be a good editor/publisher, and it is too costly for most of us to hire editors and production folk at the going professional rate.
Does anyone care, you ask? Readers care. Quality work will find the audience that wants it, and dreck will find its audience, too. Does the Harlequin Romance addict with a trunk full of bodice-ripping garbage care if it's badly written, printed on crappy paper, wrapped in a cover that makes more sophisticated readers want to puke? That reader is never going to look for or read the books we publish, and we don't care.
i like the amazon free sample to, if you were buying the book in a shop you would read the first few pages. so it makes it feel more like that.A.W. wrote: "Personally I use the Amazon free sample feature. I like to skim the first few pages and see what the spelling, grammar and writing are like before I spend my money. The preview function has saved m..."
I tend to avoid GR forum threads for the exact reasons of this thread (the OP, not anyone else). Here are my own personal rules as both an author and a reader:
Reader Rules:
1. Review a book based on its content. Did it have good spelling/grammar/punctuation/structure? Did it have a plot that sucked me in?
2. Don't review a book based on my personal feelings for an author, or what an author might have done. If I haven't read the book, I don't review it. If I do read it and review it, see #1
and my Author Rules:
1. Don't do stupid author things that stupid authors shouldn't be doing (like threatening/insulting/cursing/being immature towards readers or other authors).
2. Seriously. Stop doing stupid author things that authors shouldn't be doing. You don't want to be a stupid author doing stupid author things that you know you shouldn't be doing. So don't do it.
3. Spend time avoiding #1 and #2 by writing.
Pretty simple. There's being a good reader, and being a good author. It isn't hard to do either of those things. Truly, it isn't. There will always be trolls and others who put hate on you or throw it your way. Deal with it.
The one thing that authors really need to do, and I've learned this lesson already, and yes, it sucked and it was harsh, is to grow some thick skin.
Trolls saying bad things about you doesn't reflect on you or your writing.
Trolls harassing or stalking you doesn't really have any bearing on your book(s). Seriously. It doesn't. Accept that and life gets a lot easier as a writer.
Trolls are going to do whatever they can to get under your skin. Do not take the bait. Taking the bait is exactly what trolls want. It is how they get fed. It is how they get stronger. It is how they breed. Don't let trolls breed.
Oh, and don't be a troll if you are an author. It is very unprofessional.
Now please excuse me while I don't make another post at GR for another few months while I wait to see if Amazon will hold to their word of cleaning the place up (of both troll readers and stupid authors who do stupid author things that authors shouldn't do).
After my Bill Shakespeare letter below, I thought I would add to the discussion so excuse me for dropping in a link to my latest blog on the subject, which is hereI also refer you to the article Judy mentioned at Message 28
Kristine Kathryn Rusch made a lovely post today about standards and gatekeepers:
http://kriswrites.com/2013/10/09/the-...
I have just discovered Compulsion Reads, which is setting itself up as a kind of quality control site for indie books. You can submit and if you pass their quality criteria (based around plot, characterisation, writing skill, spelling & grammar and use of cover art) they will list your book as being endorsed by them.I have no idea what their reach or influence is, but it could be something to check out and perhaps they might fill a need in the current market?
http://www.compulsionreads.com/
I see it's a paid service. This personally makes me a little suspicious because it indicates to me that if you pay, they'll endorse. I could be wrong.
K.A. from what I understand you pay to be considered, and they do not endorse everyone who pays. Kind of like Kirkus, you pay for the review, but you have no control over if its good or bad. I have seen a few authors who are quite miffed to "fail" the quality standard and NOT be endorsed.
A.W. wrote: "Personally I use the Amazon free sample feature. I like to skim the first few pages and see what the spelling, grammar and writing are like before I spend my money. The preview function has saved me from spending my cash on some dogs."Exactly! I even sample books in the library, or when they're offered for free. Occasionally one slips through, but most of the time that's because something happens further along in the book that puts me off. See my review of The Cleaner. Which doesn't even mean that it's 'a bad book', just that it didn't pass my personal criteria.
As our time on earth is limited and we are all unable to read every book available, we have to make choices.
Still, I wonder why readers don't use the sample more?
I even use it with established popular authors, because past brilliance is not always an indication of future excellence...
A.W. wrote: "K.A. from what I understand you pay to be considered, and they do not endorse everyone who pays. Kind of like Kirkus, you pay for the review, but you have no control over if its good or bad. I ha..."
I see. There's a range of prices, though; from $19.99 to $169.99. So if you are paying to be considered, what does the range in prices signify?
A.W. I'll ask my blog master his opinion of compulsionreads.com and post his answer. (For what it's worth.)
KA - I'm not sure, but I believe price range is tied to word count?Donna that would be great. As I said, I have no affiliation or involvement, but found it through another discussion where authors were complaining about failing the quality criteria.
As a self-pub author, this discussion thread obviously caught my eye. I've enjoyed reading through the posts and learned a few things, as well. I was also encouraged, so I thought I'd share my thoughts, in case they can encourage someone who may be trying to decide whether or not to self-pub.When I first wrote my novel and considered how to get it published, I had a very negative view of self-publishing, due to the stigma attached and the prevalent thought that "self-published" meant those books obviously weren't good enough for traditional publishing.
Then I got an education.
I discovered that gaining access to a traditional publisher was almost impossible, a full-time job in itself. And one must first secure an agent. Also a full-time prospect. (I have four kids...I already work around the clock!) But I communicated with an agent for many months and in the end, she said my writing was great but she was looking for something "die-hard-esque" and mine was, essentially, a chick-flick.
Around the same time, my friends, who are excellent song-writer/singers, put out an amazing CD. It was my favorite and topped my ipod's most played list. But it wasn't "traditionally published." It was "self-published." They did it right. Their work was excellent. They paid for a professional producer, etc. But...they weren't signed to a label and therefore, they were the equivalent of a self-published book. That was a paradigm shift for me. There are crappy books out there that are traditionally published and there are crappy books that are self-published. And the opposite is true as well.
So, after so many months that essentially felt wasted on just one possible agent, I investigated self-publishing. I went with a reputable self-publishing company and published my book. It's been very well-recieved and I didn't have to make it fit what a publisher was looking for to woo the masses.
At this point, I like the freedom self pub gives me and I'm planning on publishing the second in the series through Kindle. Without self-publishing being available, my manuscript would still be languishing in a word doc. (**I do think if you're going to self-publish, you still need to pay for a professional editor!!)
And a word about paying for a review...I looked into compulsion reads.com and it looks like a great idea to me. I did pay for a Kirkus review (actually, didn't exactly pay...my publisher messed up some things so they gave me a credit, which I then applied to a Kirkus review) and it made me very nervous because they were very clear that they didn't guarantee a favorable review. As a matter of fact, they are known for being tough critics.
Thankfully, not only did I get a good review, but it was a starred review and then my book was named to Kirkus Indie's Best of 2012. That gives me some industry validation that we self-published authors probably all crave. So, if you believe in your work, I think paying for a review from a reputable source is worth it.
Hope something I've said is helpful to someone out there. And thanks to A.W. for the compulsionreads tip and to Phillip and Tori for a very funny dialogue. Loved that "letter to Bill."
Deanie wrote: "Rebekah, I agree with what you've said. There is a negative feeling about self-published work, but it not deserved. I have 4 self-published children's books: Tails of Sweetbrier, Charlie the Horse..."
Deanie wrote: "Rebekah,
I agree with what you've said. There is a negative feeling about self-published work, but it not deserved. I have 4 self-published children's books: Tails of Sweetbrier, Charlie the Horse..."
Deanie,
I tried the link but unfortunately it doesn't work.
Deanie wrote: "I'm sorry, Rebekah. I think I typed the wrong link. It should be publishedindieauthors.wordpress.com. Please let me know if you still have trouble."It worked this time! Thank you.
I checked out compulsionreads.com. They have a chart of evaluation fees based on word count. The cheapest is $19.99 for 25,000 words or fewer. The most expensive listed is $169.99 for 150,001 to 200,000 word count. They also show you how their prices compare to Kirkus. Kirkus prices are in the stratosphere.
Thank you Deanie! I'll check it out. I also found a site called awesomeindies.net. Similar idea to Compulsion Reads and has some great resources for self pub authors.
Karla wrote: "since i was deleted i will say it again! some of you need to stay on topic btw......"First off. I am an avid reader. I was appauled when I found out indie authors were allowed on goodreads. Im su..."
Why should any of us care what an obviously prejudiced person thinks?
Karla, tarring everyone with the same brush just isn't fair. It just says that you're promoting an all-out hate agenda and nothing else. Your rudeness and aggressive attacks are no doubt why you were banned in the first place. You look like you're heading in the right direction for being banned again - GR don't take kindly to trolls.And on the subject of book quality, just because the book is written by a self-pubbed or indie author doesn't make it "not good enough". In fact, I've seen just as many terrible books mainstream published authors, some of which have had films made out of them just because their families were rich enough to get their naïve kids published all the way.
In turn, I have read some amazing and some not-so-great books by self-pubbed authors. But, don't they also deserve a chance?
Seriously, big publishing houses give so few authors chances nowadays, so how else are you to find the next big thing? You might have to sift through tons of crap to find a diamond, but those diamonds are worth just as much, if not more, than the ones from mainstream authors.
And on the subject of Goodreads, Goodreads is for everyone. Goodreads doesn't prejudice against any published author, as a published author is a published author whatever means they've used to get their book in print. It is simply a library, a database, where users can share their opinions, whether honestly or heavily biased as yours are. There are some authors that play the system dirty, create puppet accounts to over-promote their book, but these are usually so obvious that the majority know to avoid them. If you've not been paying attention and have fallen into their traps, well that's not our fault. You should be instead reporting the sock accounts like the rest instead of creating an all-out hate thread then complaining when people don't agree with you.
Anyone else see the irony of the person slamming the quality of indie-books, doing so with a post riddled with spelling & grammatical typos...? ;)I thought we were very much "on topic" discussing quality control for indie authors.
Hatred is ugly. I can see why they were banned.
Yes, I saw the irony of that post. Thought it was well deserved.
THE Group for Authors!
Books mentioned in this topic
Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)The Cleaner (other topics)
I don't care who published a story, I just want a good read. 50 Shades has a large publisher behind it, but you can't convince me that is the height of literature. I would much rather read Harper Sloane or Kit Rocha, who are both indies.