THE Group for Authors! discussion
The Craft
>
Whats the deal with indie authors?
message 51:
by
Gloria
(new)
Oct 14, 2013 12:13PM
One gets the impression that Karla is fueled by rage so intense that it blinds her to quality, both that of others and hers. Hence, the stumbling and blundering anger of her post.
reply
|
flag
A.W. wrote: "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."
I must admit I did notice that, too. But I was too incensed on the other failed points to comment on it!
A.W. wrote: "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..."
I noticed. I see much and say little, but I have been following these posts for some time now. I noticed the irony immediately.
Hi Everyone,I'm a self published author on several ebook sites & the books I write have been turned down because of their content by traditional publishers, they're more adult oriented in language & so forth. The other is a young adult book with a biblical twist (yes I know far ends of the genre spectrum), but I must agree with Kellie about traditional publishers not wanting books that may be close to something they already have.
Also I believe traditional publishers are very skeptical about a new writer. They aren't as willing to take that chance.
J.B. wrote: "Hi Everyone,I'm a self published author on several ebook sites & the books I write have been turned down because of their content by traditional publishers, they're more adult oriented in language..."
J.B. What's your YA novel with a bibical twist? I did that too with my own.
Kelly it's called “The Tales of Nigel Morgan” ‘Admiral Dwight and The Colonial Airmen’ and it's published thru Smashwords, Kindle, & Wattpad which is a free preview reader.It's the first in “The Tales of Nigel Morgan” series.
What is your's & where can it be read?
Ok I have been silently following this post for a while and I would like to throw my two cents in.After a very nice fellow from a traditional publisher turned down my most recent work he was nice enough to give me a call, and explain why they chose not to go with my work at this time. HE started off by thanking me for my submission and said that my story was very good, and that he thought it should really sell well. Then came the whammy. He stated the reason they were passing on it was because I was an unknown. I had no credentials that would allow me to pull readers or buyers in. Their suggestion was that I do what I am doing now and that is to build a fan base by self publishing a few books. They said if i was able to show that my work was selling xxx numbers a month then they would consider publishing my work.
So I take away from this what I have always suspected Publishers are not against new writers but they are not gonna take a shot in the dark on someone they never heard of that just craps out 120,00 words on a page. They want to see that we are committed to our craft and are willing to due some work ourselves.
Stephen wrote: "He stated the reason they were passing on it was because I was an unknown. I had no credentials that would allow me to pull readers or buyers in. Their suggestion was that I do what I am doing now and that is to build a fan base by self publishing a few books."I had the same issue. Add to that my location (outside the US), and it's an uphill struggle. Since I've been self-publishing I've been approached by publishers, but I'm not interested in signing away all my rights for 10+ years against an advance of 5,000$. I'm not that interested in validation.
The thing is, even if you're accepted by a publisher and they pay you 8-10% royalties, the publisher still expect you to carry the brunt of the promotion.
Many authors expect that if they are published by a trade publisher, they can just focus on writing and leave the marketing and promotion to the publisher.
Fat chance.
Ask trade-published midlist authors, it's no wonder many of them are self-publishing their backlist when the rights revert to them.
Stephen wrote: "Ok I have been silently following this post for a while and I would like to throw my two cents in.After a very nice fellow from a traditional publisher turned down my most recent work he was nice..."
So, it seems that once you have done all the hard work, the traditional publisher is happy to step in and skim the cream. Not saying that is a bad thing, but once you are on a roll, selling lots of books after having built your name, why would you want to hand over the majority of the profit after that?
Just curious. Maybe there is something I am unaware of.
Martyn wrote: "Stephen wrote: "He stated the reason they were passing on it was because I was an unknown. I had no credentials that would allow me to pull readers or buyers in. Their suggestion was that I do what..."This is EXACTLY what it is. You aren't the first author to relate a story like this. Publishers claim to be the gatekeepers of quality, but the only thing they really are is the arbitrator of what they can (and will) promote to the masses.
50 Shades made it because there's a ton of horny housewives in the world.
Twilight made it because there's a ton of horny teenage girls in the world.
Neither of them are considered literary masterpieces, most of the time they are the equivalent of Justin Beiber or Britney Spears...pop sensations but really of no substance (not judging, just saying).
If a publisher sees you making a ton of money and gaining popularity, of course they'll step in and offer you a terrible deal (but they'll make it sound like you are getting a great deal).
Go read Konrath's blog, or read the things Hugh Howey has to say. It's better these days to do it all on your own (and keep 70% of your royalties, have the freedom to promote, change prices, change covers, etc.)
Only those who still (somewhat foolishly) believe that only a traditional publisher can give them validation are willing to go with a trad pub. The rest of us...our validation usually comes with the first book review, the first sale, etc.
There are advantages to going through a publisher. But you can get the same benefits as an indie if you are willing to put the work in.A lot of publishers will take your book, edit it, design a cover, Market it, Beta it to readers, print and ship it to retailers. For all of this you get a nice royalty rate of 10-20% if your lucky. I have heard 5-12% is more realistic.
I can do all that myself and farm out the parts I am not good at.
So the only thing a publisher can offer me is a big advance for my book. I think I will stay an indie for now.
Stephen wrote: "...for all of this you get a nice royalty rate of 10-20% if your lucky. I have heard 5-12% is more realistic."That may be the case with a Big 5 publisher but it is balanced by a larger advance, usually starting at around 5k, plus you gain higher visibility with placement in physical stores.
With smaller presses royalty rates are more in the region of 40-60% depending on the particular press.
A.W. wrote: "That may be the case with a Big 5 publisher but it is balanced by a larger advance, usually starting at around 5k, plus you gain higher visibility with placement in physical stores."5-10,000 dollars is a large advance?
Plus the higher visibility in physical stores (called 'coop') is reserved for Snooki's Diet Plan and JLo's How My Baby Ruined My Snatch. Publishers don't waste 'coop' on unknown authors.
No, listen to what Stephen says.
The only thing publishers offer an unknown author nowadays is 'validation'. And writers attach value to it because they don't want to be tarred with the self-publishing brush.
Publishers are looking out for number one. Their board of directors. You can dip your toe in the pool, but if your book doesn't perform to their expectations, you'll be kicked from the pool without your book, to which they have the rights for the next decade, even if they don't print it anymore.
Martyn wrote: "A.W. wrote: "That may be the case with a Big 5 publisher but it is balanced by a larger advance, usually starting at around 5k, plus you gain higher visibility with placement in physical stores."..."
My understanding is that the "advance" is just that, an advance against future sales. If the book doesn't make it, the author is expected to return any unearned amounts. Is that correct?
Norm Hamilton
Author of The Digital Eye and the soon to be released From Thine Own Well
Indie Writer Book Reviews
Services for Writers
Website
email: Norm Hamilton
No, he won't have to return any of the advance (any author that signs a contract like that deserves to be ripped off I suppose?), but he won't earn any 'royalties' until the advance has been earned out. These days, the big publishers, and even the small indie publishers...they don't really offer anything other than a few years down the road a story to tell other authors about why the author should self-pub and avoid the headache/nightmare.
I'm sure there's some good indie pubs out there, but if you read blog posts by very successful self-pubs, they'll all advocate avoiding a publisher unless the deal is too sweet to pass up (again, see Hugh Howey and Amanda Hocking to see what kind of deals they worked).
Also keep in mind, this is just my opinion on self-pub vs trad pub. I've no doubt there are plenty of others who will feel differently.
What Travis says. If you wonder how 'advance against future royalties' works, check this http://www.rachellegardner.com/2009/1...As to the sweet deals:
A sweet deal would be a high advance (say, about a year's salary) and would have restricted rights (print only, for instance), with a clause to revert rights immediately if the publisher decides not to reprint the book.
Bad deals: In some cases, the print and electronic rights and all other rights are included, and the clause of rights reverting upon decision by the publisher not to reprint can be carried over to the ebooks, which, of course, never go out of print.
Basically, if a publisher offers you a contract to publish your book, the advance should also cover the losses when they stop printing after six months but still retain rights to the material for another decade.
I have several series where the first book is published by X and book 2-4 by publisher Y. If publisher X decides not to print your book anymore, you'll be left by a series with an 'out-of-print' first book.
Great comments, and once again they show the 50 shades of grey (and more, with apologies to the 50 shades franchise) that authors need to be aware of. Books are serious business, folks. Don't play in the sandbox unless you're serious, and can hold your own. Otherwise a trad. publisher will push you down and steal your pail and shovel.
This is a really interesting thread! I'm independently published by a small, specialist eBook publisher who uses the traditional publishing model - no costs to the author. I think that Indie publishers are much more likely to take a punt on an unknown, than the Big 4,5 or 6 (have seen all three terms!).One of the advantages to being published by an independent publisher, is the opportunity to learn an enormous amount during the process.
When I submitted my original manuscript, I thought it was pristine. I'd written it, polished it, rewritten it, corrected typos and grammatical errors and then done it all over again. I was wrong. I was too close to my own work to be able to see its flaws. The acceptance letter came with a list - a large list.
The editing process was an eye opener. I think I reworked the first chapter at least three times, until both the editor and I were happy with it, and there was a moment when I took a deep breath and completely deleted a pile of pages to tighten up both the story, and the writing. I also learnt that I'm an excessive user of adjectives.
I've read some great books that have been independently published, and others that have been self published. I've also read some absolute stinkers. I have also read books published by the Big Publishers that still have errors. All of us need to make sure that our stories are not hijacked by quality control problems - spelling, grammar, tense changes, formatting problems, dodgy design and plot issues.
It's difficult, but it's so worth it! And again, great thread!
Leonie: I hated my first lessons in "kill your darlings"... It's the most painful experience when writing! Although I was told that instead of deleting the extra parts right out, to move them instead, keep them separately. It may be possible to reuse these things later on, in a different story. If not and enough time goes by and you realise the fragments are unusable, then you can delete them with a lot less pain! :)But yes - a well-edited book, whichever method it's published through, will work a lot better than one that's just been thrown together without any reworking. I think that's one thing many people hate about self-published authors, that you do get those who think something is brilliant and doesn't need editing. But those are the ones who won't go far without learning! :)
Leonie wrote: "One of the advantages to being published by an independent publisher, is the opportunity to learn an enormous amount during the process."I couldn't agree more. That was my main draw to being an independent author and decided to publish my first book even before Amazon released its Kindle ereader.
Personally, I think there are many ways to get to the same place and don't agree with the hatred that many indie authors have against traditional publishing. All things being equal, having a publisher behind you has its own set of benefits and risks. It's not nearly as bad as some authors keep saying.
Truth is, most authors aren't going to make much money whichever way they go. But I've always trusted to look out for my own interests more than anyone else. And that's pretty much why I publish my own books. No one cares, or will care, about my career as much as I do. So I'd much rather be in the driver's seat and control my own destiny than entrust it to anyone else.
Money, not seen anything once copyright was paid out on my pics for my covers. I think I'm due for a pay check and then I can pay an editor for one book, yay the joys of writing. Thankfully this is a hobby not a living but the writing is the easy part the getting noticed in the big world is the difficult part.
Leonie, my first two books were published by a small publisher, as well. I learned a heck of a lot, but I'm now 'going it on my own' and I've definitely made more money. It's a hobby for me, also, but there's nothing wrong with earning a bit of cash for your hobby!
I was able to get the rights back to my novel, "Realities," so I could publish it myself. Despite the fact that "Realities" was published in hardcover and paperback in the US, the UK, and Sweden, where it was a selection of the Swedish Book-of-the-Month Club, it would have remained in never-never land without the opportunity of self-publishing.
Mark Twain was self-published; started his own publishing house as Webster & Co. Wrote some damned fine stuff, as they say. That's good enough for me. I doubt very many readers keep up with all the changes in the publishing industry. It's a veritable swamp to wade into the blogs & opines & articles on this. I recommend reading a good book instead. Don't worry about who published it, worry more about your take on it & the joy it brings.
Well, I think the main 'problem' is the perceived lack of quality of indie and self published books, because the specter of vanity publishing hangs over it.There are plenty of examples to give of successful self publishers from the era before trade publishing (like Mark Twain), and there are plenty of examples of people who fell by the wayside of trade publishing's 'discerning taste' (like John Kennedy Toole), which mostly means that they are the ones to decide what will be published, which relies for most part on 'what will make a profit'.
While publishers are hardly the 'defenders of literature and quality writing', they have been in charge for a long time, they built up a solid network, they have plenty of eyes to go over a manuscript before it reaches the customer, so their product is often polished beyond reproach. However, trying to appeal to the masses might also mean that publishers are less inclined to take chances on the unknown author and an inclination to only take on 'the sure bet', i.e. people who've already proven themselves able to be entertaining and draw a large following.
Books like Fifty Shades of Grey would never have been trade published if the author had not drawn a large following to her 'twilight fan fiction'.
Quality of writing and literary merit do not come into play when the time comes to make a tidy profit. What happens now is that there are lots of people who want to make a profit and they're not at all concerned with literature or quality writing. Which results in a glut of bad books that are hitchhiking on the e-publishing trend, unconcerned that they are choking e-publishing like algae in a pond.
And I can fully understand the readers who don't want to skim the shit floating on the surface of the pond to fish for whatever might be lurking in the dark, when there are so many books basking in the sunlight.
Alas, like many pond dwellers, the serious indie and self publishing authors will not be able to remove or even diminish the crap clogging up the pond. We can don our most beautiful covers and swim right beneath the surface, but if the sun does not reflect on your shiny coat, the pond is just a dark maw filled with bottom dwelling crap artists.
Self-published authors can get every single service that traditional publishers provide. We pay good money for professional editors (most have worked for the Big 5 in NY and have went out on their own.
We pay good money for professional cover art (some is $50, some is $5,000).
We pay good money for professional typesetting / formatting to put our books into POD services like CreateSpace and LightningSource.
We can do everything the traditional publishers can do, but in my opinion, we can do it better, because we don't have an archaic system in place that relies on distribution to physical stores, wonky accounting that makes sure authors get paid every six months, if that. We can write mash-up genres like 'Sports & Urban Fantasy' and if the story works, an author can hit it as big if not bigger than under any traditional publisher.
Look, I'm not 'hating' on traditional publishing. I (and others) are saying that these days, there's no reason to give up 50% or more of your royalties, have no control over your cover art, have very little editorial control, and basically be set by the wayside without any promotion to be midlist authors that have to work a 'real' job in the meantime.
Not to mention we keep the rights to our work. Forever.
Publishers claim to be gatekeepers, the arbiters of quality literary works...but they release the same kind or worthless drivel that self-publishers do. Theirs gets stamped with a gold star of approval somehow, because they reside in NY...or for some reason I've never been able to figure out.
Ask 100 readers who the publisher of their book is. I'd guess that 97 of them wouldn't have a clue who publishes the books they read, but they know the author. It's the author that is important, and the reason so many of us pile on the negativity to traditional publishing is because publishing has forgotten that it is the AUTHOR that is the key to their business. It is the AUTHOR that creates the work that readers want. If publishers could do these things, they wouldn't need authors.
Sometimes we authors that advocate strongly for self-publishing DO come across as angry, uptight, confrontational. There's a reason for it. Read JA Konrath's blog. Read Barry Eisler's blog. Read The Passive Voice site and interact with fellow authors in the comments. You'll soon see a very large (too large sometimes) group of traditionally published authors who have struck out on their own, for all of the reasons we've listed in this thread.
No one is saying you can't or shouldn't go with a traditional publisher (even if we sometimes do say that). If that's what an author wants, then an author should do whatever he or she wants. What is being said is that authors should think pretty hard about it and realize what they are giving up to gain, and vice-versa.
Martyn wrote: "Well, I think the main 'problem' is the perceived lack of quality of indie and self published books, because the specter of vanity publishing hangs over it."You hit the nail on the head I believe a lot of people say "Oh that's a Indie author so its not gonna be any good and have tons of errors."
I will be the first to admit that there are a lot of bad indie books out there but there are just as many good or great indies too. Established publishers just want to lump any and all indies into one big group. they are the ones that point the finger at us and say you are destroying the industry. I have seen more that one blog that blatantly claims that all indie publishing should be abolished. I don't see that ever happening but i do think that we all get a bad image because of the actions of a few.
"All opinions expressed are my own."
Stephen wrote: "You hit the nail on the head I believe a lot of people say "Oh that's a Indie author so its not gonna be any good and have tons of errors.""And the problem is that they are right about that so often that the few professional indie/self publishers become 'exceptions'. So what are they to do?
Personally, I think we have to be more professional than trade published authors. That means, no prissy 'speshul snowflake' behaviour, no discourtesy to other authors or readers, and investing in providing a solid product when you publish: attractive professional cover, good formatting, well-edited prose. And online we must always remember that everything we write, even in jest, will remain public property for decades to come.
The boundaries are coming down, and self-publishing allows many readers to communicate straight with the author on forums and email. Make sure you don't make an ass out of yourself by contemplating whether you really want to respond in a particular fashion.
I had a difficult relationship with my last employer, where they would harass me, and send me letters that would get my hackles up. Their letter were intended to get me to either quit or give them a reason to fire me.
What I did with their letters was write a reply and shelf it. Come back to my response a day later and edit out the vitriol, shelf it again and check it out a day later to replace blunt impulsive words with measured words that would convey my meaning without exposing myself as bitter and resentful at their constant badgering. Because I didn't lower myself to their level, I could take the high ground in the severance negotiations that ended my contract and let me out with a hefty paycheck.
In many ways it's better to count to a hundred before you press the 'post' or 'send' button...
Travis wrote: "Self-published authors can get every single service that traditional publishers provide. We pay good money for professional editors (most have worked for the Big 5 in NY and have went out on thei..."
Hi Travis,
I enjoyed your comment and think you are largely right on. Readers don't care what publisher published the book, who edited the book, or even who designed the cover.
I think this line of thought can be taken a step further as I don't even think most readers care who the author is. Readers care about the story. I remember lots of great books but cannot remember who the authors are or even what the covers of the books looked like. In the end it is content that we remember.
In my view the current controversy over industrial publishing versus self or indie publishing is little more than people wanting to preserve the status quo. In reality publishing is returning to it's roots, industrial publishing is a very recent creation in the history of literature.
Prior to the turn of the last century, authors were nearly identical to the self-published author we see today. Writing, editing, financing, and marketing books was something that Shakespeare, Ben Franklin, and Buffalo Bill Cody were all familiar with- there was no other option.
It was only the creation of chain stores like Woolworths that created the regional and nationwide distribution system that allowed for books to reach a wide audience. This centralization of buying power resulted in a need for books that had an ensured level of quality. Not so much content quality but rather physical quality and formatting quality (paper, pages counts, etc...).
As this is a physical factory process it makes sense to gather the skilled workers needed and put them under one roof, industrial publishing was created. It was never about quality of content.
Over time terms like bestseller or top ten lists were created as part of marketing the factory product.
Today anyone can purchase the resources industrial publishing has (editing, cover design, layout, etc..), consider it team publishing versus self-publishing.
The only advantage still belong to industrial publishing is getting books into book stores. However as there are fewer and fewer book stores this advantage is also disappearing.
Writing is returning to its roots, this is not a new frontier rather just a correction that is once again making writing a form of small business mixed with art.
My two cents worth - I don't think self publishing can ever be stuffed back in the can. I believe there will always be quality issues, simply because markets like Amazon are now accessible to anybody with a computer and an internet connection.I think what we will see is the rise of some form of indie quality control group. A body where you can voluntarily submit your novel and have it rated for things like cover, editing, plot, spelling & grammar etc. Perhaps it will have some pass/fail or rating system that is quick and easy for the reader to understand, that indie books can whack on the cover somewhere (like the Awesome Indies gold graphic).
Those who don't care about editing or producing a quality professional product will either not submit to such a rating group or will fail.
That's very interesting. I never thought of a lot of that.
To be honest I love self-published books, they are hit and miss in quality but it gives a chance to the poorer author a chance to get noticed.
Indie authors are not going away...because we are like geeks playing with electronic gizmos, or guys making rubber soles for shoes with waffle irons in theirs parents basement or garage. Thats how nike, and apple were started. The publishing world is changing, because we don't have to play by their rules anymore. This is also how hip hop and rock n roll got started....we are just a group if people thats about to tell the world get out of my! Is it going to be hard, YEP! But is it going to be worth it, Hell yes!
Hi I'm an indie author. how do i get reviews? i have made samples on Smashwords as i cannot afford to do shipping. https://www.createspace.com/4148887
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1482088789
Sorry a member directed me here, but i don't know where exactly to post?
Ireth wrote: "Hi I'm an indie author. how do i get reviews? "
I think that's actually a question every author asks. There are however several ways of approaching this.
You can try free downloads and many do. Amazon estimates that it takes 1500 readers to produce one review. So if you are wanting 50 reviews you are going to be looking at 75,000 readers.
You can do a book giveaway here on Goodreads or there are some other sites as well. On average for every book you giveaway you can expect half a review, or giveaway 10 books you might get 5 reviews.
The other option is to start looking for book review bloggers. This is a very time consuming process unless you are just spamming them, as you need to read their pages and learn whether or not they are a match with your material.
I've got some lists of bloggers that I have used to good effect. If you promise not to spam I'd be happy to share theses lists. Just private message me with your email address and I'll send them. Best of luck.
Marc wrote: "Ireth wrote: "Amazon estimates that it takes 1500 readers to produce one review. So if you are wanting 50 reviews you are going to be looking at 75,000 readers...."Interesting Marc. This isn't a very impressive track record. I'm curious what your source is? I'd like to see more on this.
Norm Hamilton
Author of The Digital Eye and the soon to be released From Thine Own Well
Indie Writer Book Reviews
Services for Writers
Website
email: Norm Hamilton
Ireth wrote: "Hi I'm an indie author. how do i get reviews?I looked at your book but I must confess I didn't go to Smashwords. There are non-reciprocating review groups here on GR that you can look up. You can also ask among some of the other forums. Book review bloggers are a good spot to try too. as are some free giveaways.
Norm wrote: "Marc wrote: "Ireth wrote: "Amazon estimates that it takes 1500 readers to produce one review. So if you are wanting 50 reviews you are going to be looking at 75,000 readers...."I have noticed at least from my own experience that Amazon tends to pad their stats a lot. I average better than what Amazons stats say I should. And I do even better when I am actively marketing.
Hi Norm,I went back and couldn't find the source, but the original article was about Amazon and the effectiveness of KDP and the giveaway of books. While I was at first just as shocked by the ratio 1500/1 after looking around at different books and reading author comments here on Goodreads I think it's probably pretty accurate. Take the total number of copies sold for almost any of the big best sellers and then divide by the number of reviews, the number usually comes pretty close to the ration Amazon produced.
I like Stephen have done considerably better than that ratio, but it was a lot of work as I targeted bloggers for reviews versus just giving my book away for free and hoping for reviews.
In the end my experience showed me that it is a very small number of people who are willing to have a public opinion. Especially a new and unique opinion. People like to follow the herd and go with the flow, let someone else do their thinking for them. Turning the herd while difficult is not as much about numbers as it is about persistence. Studies have consistently shown across multiple species that it only requires 6% of a population going the opposite direction (upstream/downstream, uptown/downtown) to alter the direction of the entire group.
My basic take away is that rather than give away 75,000 free copies to obtain 50 reviews, spend the time finding the 50 who will tell the other 74,950.
I'll keep looking for the source but here is another one that makes the same point. Best of luck marketing.
Tim Ferriss Effect
I recall reading somewhere that across everything not just books review ratio seems to be approximately .06% to .08%Like Marc said sometimes it pays to find the ones that will tell the others than waiting for them to find you.
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..."..."appauled"? As in, "mauled" (the language)? Also, she seems to have apostrophobia.
Somehow that doesn't really portray an image of an "avid reader"... just saying... ;-)
Lyz wrote: "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 a..."Since those posts were deleted before I saw them, I can't really comment properly. But there are avid readers who struggle with their own spelling and grammar, and perhaps Karla is one of them. (Think about those with dyslexia perhaps.) I'm guessing from other posts that the grammar and spelling in her replies was not the only issue, given the deletion of her comments.
Having said that, every reader has the right to expect that the book they pick up to read is well edited and formatted. If it's not, then yes, the reader does have the right to comment on this, no matter whether the book is self published, independently published or traditionally published by a "big" publisher.
Unfortunately one of the things we see all too often is the excuse: "But I'm not traditionally published, it's not my fault." In my opinion, that's a cop out. If you think it's good enough to be out there, then it should be well edited at the very least. That's part of being a craftsman.
However, painting all self-published authors in the same light as one that you've had a bad experience (reading their book(s)) is the problem that most have had with Karla (and many others who think the same thing).This type of thinking is no different than "all Muslims are terrorists" or "all teachers are pedophiles."
Being a craftsman is a good thing, and everyone that is one should take the utmost pride in their craft. Craftsmen should not have to constantly defend themselves from attack just because another craftsman didn't produce something free of errors.
Travis wrote: "However, painting all self-published authors in the same light as one that you've had a bad experience (reading their book(s)) is the problem that most have had with Karla (and many others who think the same thing).This type of thinking is no different than "all Muslims are terrorists" or "all teachers are pedophiles.""
Exactly my point why should someone just make an assumption that all of us are crap because they picked up one indie book that the author just threw together and didn't care about formatting, spelling, etc.
Hmmm, maybe I didn't phrase my reply well enough. I'm not at all advocating painting all self-published authors in the same light, but I am advocating for quality control. And the quality control needs to be done by the authors who self publish, because at this point, there is no one else.It's probably more like "the one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel" kind of analogy. Again, having said that, it simply means that the rest of the self published barrel need to hold themselves to standards just as high as independently or traditionally published authors. (And I do recognise that traditionally =/= always great).
It's a dilemma. One of the issues is the rotten apples, if you like. Rotten apples spoil it for everyone, and although I personally have read some fabulous self published books, and will do so again, there are enough of the other type around to make people justifiably wary. It's the whole "once bitten twice shy" issue.
And I truly did not mean to fill my post with idioms when I began it ;)
The Fussy Librarian
is another, but Leonie -- don't worry, there IS someone else who performs the most excellent QC on newly published books: The Marketplace. If a book is terrible, no one will buy it. Even the traditional Gatekeepers screw up from time to time and publish junk or books with spelling/formatting errors and unchecked "facts" etc. Ultimately, the marketplace decides who lives and who dies... or falls down to mid-list where they cling to survival. It's not a pretty picture, but it does a good job of weeding out the dross.
I spent an entire lifetime in the ad game and publicity, and it may come as a surprise to many that shills and sock puppets are nothing new in book reviews. In fact, only a very stupid publisher would ever release un-tested galleys or advance copies to "unknown quantity", un-affiliated reviewers. The smartest publishers always know exactly who the best reviewer for any given work will be and secure plenty of these before they even go to press. Publishing is a business, so it depends heavily on marketing. When you decide to purchase the new block-buster, I can guarantee you came to the decision exactly in the way it was engineered. When people get angry about how untrustworthy reviews have "become", I would say that it's as a result of all the "shotgun" marketing of new releases, and not because the publicity and marketing of old were some kind of gold standard of ethics. Sic Caveat Emptor is the rule. Always has been.I should add to this, that one new thing has arrived with the online forums. Namely, the ability of someone who disagrees with an author's public positions to go wherever that author's books are sold and troll their reviews, adding one-star ratings often anonymously, when they haven't
even read the book in question. This can seriously skew the way a newly released book appears in search results and damage sales. I have also heard of groups of trolls descending upon authors and forcing them to actually pull up their roots and leave sites like Goodreads entirely. That to me, smacks of censorship and mob behavior, not just concern about the general quality of books being released. Oddly enough, many of these incensed troll mobs are often shills themselves. Honesty across the board, leaving the market to sort itself out is the only way everyone benefits.
Well, in many ways, you are entirely right! I probably have more faith in the power of the market than I should.
THE Group for Authors!
Books mentioned in this topic
Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)The Cleaner (other topics)
