This group has been designated for adults age 18 or older. Please sign in and confirm your date of birth in your profile so we can verify your eligibility. You may opt to make your date of birth private.
Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
What stops you from reading self-published novels?
A.V. wrote: "Lynda wrote: ... I can't count how many reviews I've wanted to begin with the sentence, "Did I read the same book as everyone else?"LOL! So how many have you actually done with that line? I think..."
Ha Ha. Nice. I haven't actually ever written a line like that, but I sure have thought it a lot. I'm not kind with those(if I actuall submit them. I generally end up writing it, then deleting it), but I'm not that blunt either.
Lena wrote: "Good self promoters are not obnoxious, it's bad ones that are! I think mostly new authors do this...it's my book! Look what I made! I'm so proud! Lol...
Once we are old pros, we either sell well a..."
Agreed about the 'old pros' comment. But I think just the sheer number of self-promoters become obnoxious to readers on these mixed sites after a while. I notice that as the number of authors rises on a website, the number of readers seems to decline, and it's not because the readers are suddenly writing books. I've seen/heard/read evidence to suggest that it is solely because they get so tired of the endless assault of "please read my book. It's new. It's revolutionary. It's not your typical Indie. I'm better than the others!"
That's why so many sites have set up special threads just for authors, yet so many new authors (and even some old ones) still slam their book add right into the middle of a conversation that has nothing to do with them or their genre.
I often feel that way about national book award and prints award winners. But I loved Hunger Games.
Dalton wrote: " I notice that as the number of authors rises on a website, the number of readers seems to decline, and it's not because the readers are suddenly writing books. I've seen/heard/read evidence to suggest that it is solely because they get so tired of the endless assault of "please read my book. It's new. It's revolutionary. It's not your typical Indie. I'm better than the others!" ..."The other reason is because authors can't seem to resist hijacking all of the threads to talk about themselves, their writing, and their own books.
Look at the OP for this thread. Jen was asking for opinions from "readers." The discussion has rapidly morphed into (yet another) author-centered discussion among authors about getting readers to review your books.
It sounds like all of you want to put readers to work for you as unpaid mouthpieces.
The name of this group is Goodreads Authors/Readers. I see very little interest in genuine engagement with readers.
Now, I know that is inflammatory, and that you don't all actually want this (although I maintain that an honest evaluation would reveal to some authors that, in fact, they don't want readers. They want admirers and fans). But the avalanche of incessant authorial navel-gazing is off-putting.
I don't want to be a net nanny - they are annoying. It's not my intention to tell you how to post. But you might be interested to know how author behavior sometimes looks to outsiders, looking in.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Dalton wrote: " I notice that as the number of authors rises on a website, the number of readers seems to decline, and it's not because the readers are suddenly writing books. I've seen/heard/read ..."You make a very good point, Moonlight Reader. This thread would have been more interesting/informative (and pure) if comments had been restricted to only those without an author profile. (I will disappear into the shadows now.)
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Dalton wrote: " I notice that as the number of authors rises on a website, the number of readers seems to decline, and it's not because the readers are suddenly writing books. I've seen/heard/read ..."To be honest, I'm also wondering if this particular topic may just be more interesting to authors than to readers. I don't think most readers care that much whether a book is self-published or not, they just care about whether it's competently written and whether or not the author is a fruitcake.
Sadly, any number of self-published books don't meet this criteria, and a certain number of readers will learn to equate self-publishing with inconsistent quality and crazy writers. I suspect most readers select mostly on what looks good to them. They either don't notice that books are self-published or don't read them at all. I don't think the nuts and bolts are that fascinating to most of them.
I don't write a lot of reviews, but I do read a lot of them and I very, very seldom see any mention of a book's publishing provenance in reviews.
Gregor wrote: "You make a very good point, Moonlight Reader. This thread would have been more interesting/informative (and pure) if comments had been restricted to only those without an author profile. (I will disappear into the shadows now.)"I don't think there's a need to disappear into the shadows. Authors read, too. At least, we hope they do. There have been a small number of them here who have stated that they "hate" to read and that other people's books are "boring," and it's no surprise to me that their book samples aren't very good.
I am guilty of bringing the "as an editor, I..." into the conversation, although sometimes it's needed to explain why certain self-pub issues stand out to me more than others. My apologies.
Let's all do the secret handshake and put on our "I'm a reader and only a reader" hats for this thread. I think that might work.
And thank you, Moonlight Reader, for bringing us back on-topic.
A.V. wrote: "Lynda wrote: ... I can't count how many reviews I've wanted to begin with the sentence, "Did I read the same book as everyone else?"LOL! So how many have you actually done with that line? I think..."
For the record, I did use that as the subject line for one review, and I think it was my favorite review ever, because the author replied (under a different name, of course) and yelled at me for not knowing good books when I see them.
I'm sorry, I thought we had taken the hijacking to another thread already and were simply now slightly-more-than-a-little 'off-topic'. shutting the f--k up now.
Lynda wrote: "A.V. wrote: "Lynda wrote: ... I can't count how many reviews I've wanted to begin with the sentence, "Did I read the same book as everyone else?"LOL! So how many have you actually done with that ..."
I would be tempted to suggest that neither did the author.
Wearing my reader hat, I seldom notice, at least before the fact. I assume most of the titles that I click on the blurb of, roll my eyes, and internally go "Oh my word, did this person finish the fifth grade?" are self-published, but it wouldn't usually occur to me to check. If it starts out strong, I commit to it, and then it proceeds to fall apart into a shredded heap of dangling plot ends and disjointed structure, yes, I'll go back and take a peek, but I usually have my answer. Sometimes I get curious with hybrids, particularly teasing out the differences between the self and professionally published work. It very rarely factors into my decision to read something.
Moonlight Reader wrote: The other reason is because authors can't seem to resist hijacking all of the threads to talk about themselves, their writing, and their own books.Look at the OP for this thread. Jen was asking for opinions from "readers." The discussion has rapidly morphed into (yet another) author-centered discussion among authors about getting readers to review your books.
It sounds like all of you want to put readers to work for you as unpaid mouthpieces.
The name of this group is Goodreads Authors/Readers. I see very little interest in genuine engagement with readers....
Amen, Moonlight Reader, and this response is (dare I say it) from an author. I know what we authors think; I want to hear from readers. They're knowledgeable and informative, and they just might be able to provide information that can help you, authors, including what Moonlight Reader alluded to, but much more politely: shut up and listen.
C.M.J. wrote: "Moonlight Reader wrote: The other reason is because authors can't seem to resist hijacking all of the threads to talk about themselves, their writing, and their own books.Look at the OP for this ..."
You don't actually need readers to tell you what stops us from reading self-published novels. You already know - you just don't like the answer. Any one of you could write a long paragraph on the reasons, which all boil down to that they have a reputation of being unprofessional, poorly written, unedited rejects from the slushpile.
You don't need to spend the next 17 posts explaining to me that your book is different. That you hired an editor, that your book is too edgy/unique/genre-busting for traditional publishers, that you didn't submit your book for publication because you wanted total editorial control. We - the ubiquitous reader - have heard it all before, and we largely ignore your explanations because they are mostly self-serving blather. They may or may not be true, but they do not matter because they are a cliche.
I think a better question is: when you - dear reader - decide to buy/read a book, what tips you over the edge of the decision to buy the one that is self-published as opposed to all of the other possible books out there that you could buy instead? Ask the question, then shut up a listen. And when you get an answer you don't like, don't try to change the person's mind because their answer means that they will never buy your book. Ask yourself how you can change your book, your approach, your next book, to bring this reader into your fold.
For me, what gets me reading a self-published novel is that it, first and foremost, has to be indistinguishable from a trade published novel by appearance and professionalism, + it has to be cheaper. No, really, I mean it. I have no dog in the fight of self-publishing. I don't read self-published books because I want to support "indie" authors. I don't care how you published your book.
So, number one: don't ask me to lower my standards to read your book.
Do you want to hear more, or have I worn out my welcome?
I understand why excluding authors might be desirable, but doing so would excluding a lot of readers. I read a heck of a lot more books than I've written, and I post about a heck more of them, too.
Moonlight Reader, I think you hit the nail on the head. To encourage a reader to look at a self-published book, the reader should have no idea that it was self-published. It should be indistinguishable from a traditionally published book. Professionalism is professionalism, and I don't think it's too tall an order for readers to expect. (And yes, I look at the cover first. Then the blurb. Then the sample chapters. I do this for all books, regardless of publisher, because I've been burned too many times by books both self and traditionally published.)
Stan, I don't think it's a question of excluding authors; it's asking for authors to comment on this thread as readers only.
Stan wrote: "I understand why excluding authors might be desirable, but doing so would excluding a lot of readers. I read a heck of a lot more books than I've written, and I post about a heck more of them, too."I wasn't trying to exclude anyone. I was just explaining why readers tend to leave when authors gather.
In addition, you have a dog in the fight. Just like traditionally published authors all read each other's books, indie authors often read each other's books. There is nothing wrong with it, but your perspective probably isn't generalizable across a large spectrum of readers.
I'm not sure that any perspective is generalizable across a large spectrum of readers. But you are already part of the audience. If the desire is to expand the audience beyond other self-publishing authors (and let's be honest, there are a lot of you, but there are probably not enough upon which to base a professional career), then your perspective is of dubious value. You may be able to answer the question of why "this" SP-book over "that" SP-book, but in any case, you're probably buying self-published.
Moonlight Reader:You're right: many self-published writers are so focused on promotepromotepromote they fail to see they are alienating readers. You're also right in that there should be no quality difference between the traditionally published and self published books. That's what it all comes down to. Can we tell, from a glance, that this work was put together without the aid of a major publishing house? If so, we're already forming a bias.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "I think a better question is: when you - dear reader - decide to buy/read a book, what tips you over the edge of the decision to buy the one that is self-published as opposed to all of the other possible books out there that you could buy instead?..." The sample has to grab me, engage me, leave me wanting more. I don't care who published it. If it's not up to snuff or doesn't interest me, I'll drop it within seconds. But if it's good, I'll buy it.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "For me, what gets me reading a self-published novel is that it, first and foremost, has to be indistinguishable from a trade published novel by appearance and professionalism, + it has to be cheaper...."
Yep, it should be cheaper, and it darned well better be indistinguishable from a trade-published book. Like it or not, indie authors, you have to prove yourselves, and that means that you have to give ground either monetarily or in some other way in the fight to be noticed.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Do you want to hear more, or have I worn out my welcome?"
More, please!
Someone should put up a general thread: "What readers WISH authors knew."
Jen wrote: "Someone should put up a general thread: "What readers WISH authors knew.""That is a thread I would love to see AND read! Amen to that!
Lisa wrote: "Jen wrote: "Someone should put up a general thread: "What readers WISH authors knew.""That is a thread I would love to see AND read! Amen to that!"
Only problem might be angry authors...
Angry authors banned from posting :D We live and learn you know!
Jen wrote: "Someone should put up a general thread: "What readers WISH authors knew.""Start it, already. I'll read it. Seems like a LOT of people really need to let off steam at authors (or at least at INDIE authors). Maybe that's exactly what is needed.
Lisa wrote: "Angry authors banned from posting :D We live and learn you know!"Hmmm. I could actually control that thread if I put it on the group. Here goes nothing:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Authors can learn a lot from readers. Anyone who'd like to submit a question, comment, complaint, whatever, feel free to post. Author participation will be monitored.
You don't need to spend the next 17 posts explaining to me that your book is different. That you hired an editor, that your book is too edgy/unique/genre-busting for traditional publishers, that you didn't submit your book for publication because you wanted total editorial control. We - the ubiquitous reader - have heard it all before, and we largely ignore your explanations because they are mostly self-serving blather. They may or may not be true, but they do not matter because they are a cliche.Look at t..."
Moonlight Reader, you make a great point. I've SP'd my first novel, and I'm going the traditional route with my second. Either way involves great deal of marketing and selling my own book. All of what you mention above are techniques we authors use to try to sell our books, and I get you...it isn't working. I've done better than some with sales, but I also despise having to "push" my book on people, so I don't think I do as well as I could.
Honestly, I truly do want to know what would get a reader to consider my book without having to stumble upon it. How can I bring it to your attention without being too pushy? I'm not arguing your point, I truly am interested in your, and anyone else's response to this question. I think this is a great post question "What Stops You From Reading Self-Published Novels?" I was excited to hear what readers had to say.
I've been floating around several groups "spying" so to speak, and as unfortunate as it seems, many readers are put off by SP authors. I have to admit, I've been put off by quite a few as well. I don't want to be "one of them". I write my books because I love doing it. I admire many, many, many of the traditional authors, buy their books frequently, follow them via social networks, etc. This is something I truly enjoy, and I like to learn from readers how I can go about sharing this with you without "getting in your face" about it. I'm afraid without having a huge publishing house behind me promoting my books, I'm a bit at a loss of how to get the word out without offending.
By the way... I can be just a reader without speaking about my books if that keeps me in the loop with readers. :) I do love to chat about other authors/books/movies and such. Books are so very important. I got my kids involved in them, and now my grandkids. What great experiences we get to share.
Thank you all for reading!
As a reader: It has to suck me right in...whatever the story is: be it Henry James or a newbie testing the self-publishing waters for the first time. Tell me your story---give it life and color and personality---I don't give a rat's behind HOW it was published. That's just mechanics and formatting.What I want is your heart, your emotion and the color of your landscape.
Arabella wrote: "I don't give a rat's behind HOW it was published. That's just mechanics and formatting.What I want is your heart, your emotion and the color of your landscape."
Thank you Arabella. Beautifully stated! As a reader, that is EXACTLY what I want to buy and as a writer it is what I most want to hear!
Usually the first three pages. I'm not concerned with the publisher, or a known author, even a too-slick cover; but if the first three pages don't deliver a smooth, enticing ride, I'm gone.
R. wrote: "Usually the first three pages. I'm not concerned with the publisher, or a known author, even a too-slick cover; but if the first three pages don't deliver a smooth, enticing ride, I'm gone."I have go a little farther than that. If I had just read three pages of LOTR, I would have given up.
Well, that's a good point, Stan. With LOTR, I knew what sort of thing I was getting into from the get-go. I didn't pick it up cold. But you're right: Tolkien (and I am a huge, HUGE fan) can be a bit on the dry side sometimes. If someone had never heard of it, they might have had less patience. I could also say the same about Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series. I found it a little slow to start. In fact, I read the first chapter of Seventh Son and then didn't pick it up again for several months. I put it down because I just...did. No real reason, but if it had grabbed me harder, I would not have been ABLE to put it down. I picked it back up because I knew it was the sort of thing I absolutely should love and because a little down-time came my way. But it was not the hookiest thing I've ever read at the start.
I am an author. But mostly around GR I wear my reader hat, because I read very widely indeed.
Stan wrote: "I have go a little farther than that. If I had just read three pages of LOTR, I would have given up."Good point, Stan. I recently finished A Tale of Two Cities and it took forever to get going. But oh my, the last third of that book was phenomenal. More than made up for the difficulty of the beginning.
Classics and bigger books, fantasy and horror, seem to sometimes start slow. It took me three tries with Jane Eyre, now one of my favorites. And sometimes it takes me a week or two to get into a Stephen King book before I'm hooked enough to plow through 1000 pages in a few days. Nowadays, it seems like there's more emphasis on starting out with BANG! Action. Go time.
You are so right about ATale of Two Cities! I am an omnivorous reader. I don't think I got ten pages in and dropped it.But go figure I've read and loved Bleak House, Nicholas Nickleby, The Pick wick Papers , Little Dorrit...to name a few of Dickens books! But for some reason 'Tale ' just didn't do it for me.
I try to give books more than three pages. I usually just keep going until I lose interest. Heck I tried to read Robert Jordans first Wheel of Time book twice...got about 85 pages in both times. It was just too derivative...like over chewed gun...
And for some reason, even though I thought I'd love it....Jonathan Strange....that didn't work for me, either though in that case I think it was because none of the characters, to me, were likeable.
I tried four times to read Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and in the end gave up because the start was just too long winded and boring.If i am going to pick up and read a SP book in the first place, then it has to look as professional as a traditionally published book. Nice cover, nice blurb, and good sample. It just gives me a little bit of confidence that the author has taken as much care inside the book as he has on the outside. But, what puts me off most, is when the blurb says things like "The best read since ....." or "If you liked XXXXXX then you will love this ....." Really gets up my nose.
Elaine wrote: "I tried four times to read Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and in the end gave up because the start was just too long winded and boring."I haven't read the Millenium series, but those who have told me that you basically had to skim the beginning and that it got better later on...
There are fashions in fiction style, and modern readers are used to a faster start. If you go back and read Dickens or Hugo or Trollope it is clearly a different pace. You just have to get used to it.
If Moby Dick was written today....lol.
I would like to add something to the topic question because of a message and a friend request I received just recently.An author and member of a group I joined some days ago, send me a friend request accompanied with a message promoting her books to me...
Not only is it against the group's rules to send promotional messages to its members, but I have never interacted with this author before.
So the best way to stop me from reading a self published book is when I get a friend request from its author!
It is also not helpful to try to befriend me just because I marked one's book on my TBR shelf; it just helps the book to get bumped down on my priority list.
Furthermore, I will refrain from putting it on my currently-reading shelf, because maybe the author will be tempted to "like" my status, which in return is likely to put some kind of "pressure" on me and feels like a stranger is breathing down my neck.
This is not the first time I have heard that Dragon Tattoo is boring and someone didn't get past the first chapter. Which is kind of interesting to me, because I've also heard repeatedly that it's a great book.
Haven't read it, so I can't say. But it's a good example of two completely divergent viewpoints coming from a book with a boring start.
Lena wrote: "Nowadays, it seems like there's more emphasis on starting out with BANG! Action. Go time">I completely agree, Lena. I've always loved the classics, but nowadays I find that when I open a book what grabs me most is the 'jumping right into it'. I know many people are against Prologues, but I like them because they let me know what to expect further in. So, even if the story starts a bit slow, after reading the Prologue I'm more apt to stay with the book a bit longer in anticipation of the coming events. But sometimes the use of a Prologue can backfire on the author where I'm concerned, because if the Prologue was great it sets the story up for higher expectations by me, and if those expectations are not met within a suitable time, I have been known to stop reading the book altogether.
In today's world of books, they are so plentiful that I find I'm not so willing to waste my time on something that isn't holding my interest. Time is valuable, and when I decide to spend it reading a book, I must enjoy that time. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. I want a great memory to take away from that time spent.
A book must be well-written. Period. Writing is a craft, an art, a skill. In the theater, a poorly acted play makes me tired regardless how brilliant the script. (Have you ever sat through a poorly acted production of "Streetcar"?) A well acted play makes me go on a journey. I feel the same for writing.
I personally don't like novels that start on a BANG! and then, Bang! Bang! bang! action, cheesy bad TV dialogue, all wrapped up in six impossible things before breakfast. I don't care if it's an SP or a professionally published piece: that type of fast pace allows no room for character and tone and depth. I'm not interested in a 'quick read' while I'm on a plane.
I love the classics, and although, at times, I can get frustrated with the 'plodding' Henry James, in the long run, he can elicit emotions from me that nobody else can.
and then there's the brilliant power of Dickens, and Hawthorne, and Cather, and Melville, and the Brontes, and Austen, and Dos Passos, and Fitzgerald, and Baldwin, and Capote and... the delectable list goes on and on....
Lena wrote: "Classics and bigger books, fantasy and horror, seem to sometimes start slow. It took me three tries with Jane Eyre, now one of my favorites. And sometimes it takes me a week or two to get into a St..."
Patience is a virtue, and its own reward. The most interesting book I ever read was fairly dull for the first 400 pages, and only the aura surrounding the book kept me reading. I have since read it two more times, and continued to enjoy it. The book I just finished was written by a self-published author, and some readers complained that it started slow. I've learned that if a book is well-written, persisting through the slow starts is well worth it.
Patience is a virtue, and its own reward. The most interesting book I ever read was fairly dull for the first 400 pages, and only the aura surrounding the book kept me reading. I have since read it two more times, and continued to enjoy it. The book I just finished was written by a self-published author, and some readers complained that it started slow. I've learned that if a book is well-written, persisting through the slow starts is well worth it.
J. Lee wrote: "A book must be well-written. Period. Writing is a craft, an art, a skill. In the theater, a poorly acted play makes me tired regardless how brilliant the script. (Have you ever sat through a poor..."
That is true. I recently got an amazon freebie that was just unreadable. I have no idea if it was self pubbed, but I don't think it was. It had too many reviews. I gave up quickly. I just don't have time for bad books.
I think reading slow books can be akin to mountain climbing, or learning a musical instrument, or some other difficult task. Yes, it can be painful at first. You may wander in the foothills forever, but the views to be had at the summit may stay with you long after that roller-coaster ride you read through the week before.Reading these sorts of books is definitely worth the time and effort. Yes I could have read three other books perhaps in the same time span, but they often lack the depth and significance and impact that other stories may have.
Of course it's not a hard set rule. There are slow books that are not worth reading and there are fast-paced ones that are. But I don't write off a book just because it's hard going. Usually those are the ones that really grow me as a reader and even as a person. And that I count as time well spent.
D.J. wrote: There are slow books that are not worth reading and there are fast-paced ones that are. But I don't write off a book just because it's hard going. Usually those are the ones that really grow me as a reader and even as a person. And that I count as time well spent. Agreed. I have read long books that I though were the greatest entertainment I'd had in years. I then gave them to a friend and got back responses like "Thanks for the sleeping pill."
For me, if it's well-written, and the story is interesting, I'm in until they do something stupid like kill off the main protagonist, or completely change writing style on me or I hit the section where they stopped editing.
Dalton wrote: "For me, if it's well-written, and the story is interesting, I'm in until they do something stupid like kill off the main protagonist, or completely change writing style on me or I hit the section where they stopped editing."That's bizarre to me. Why would any author STOP editing?!
Jen wrote: "Dalton wrote: "For me, if it's well-written, and the story is interesting, I'm in until they do something stupid like kill off the main protagonist, or completely change writing style on me or I hi..."The author probably did not stop editing. What happened was that the book was uploaded for some reason before the editing process was finished. Maybe to meet a deadline for a blogger or for some other reason.
Jen wrote: "Dalton wrote: "For me, if it's well-written, and the story is interesting, I'm in until they do something stupid like kill off the main protagonist, or completely change writing style on me or I hi..."Some authors think that it is an acceptable marketing tactic to only edit the first 10%, which is the part that shows as the sample.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Science Fiction (other topics)Vox (other topics)
The Discovery of Heaven (other topics)
A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
Life With a Fire-Breathing Girlfriend (other topics)
More...
Once we are old pros, we either sell well and don't need to do that, or we don't and have accepted it.