Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
XI. Misc
>
'Author' - The Only Title Necessary!
date
newest »
newest »
I disagree. Authors who self-publish often do before the work is ready. Only through the submission process to small presses and agents can they discover if they have something that's good enough. Small presses will ignore you completely if you send junk, will send a form letter if it's close, and will make comments if they find it has merit. Actually, vanity presses can also be considered self-published because they get money from you, not from how good your work is.
I agree with you, Jim, but being (getting) older, we know...verbiage changes with the times. Whereas once there were Secretaries, now they are Administrative Assistance, Janitors are now Custodians, teachers are now Educators. And nothing is 'right on' anymore. There's a whole other vocabulary out there for that meaning now. And I wonder...does it really matter? Let others present themselves as they wish...as long as they are honest. Self-published or independent....tomato...tomAto.
Hi, Jim. One thing I agree with you about is how people should judge a book. There are those who think that self published authors only self publish because the book isn't good enough to be published otherwise. That, of course is rubbish. Not in all cases,of course, but many authors self publish simply because they have complete control and it's quicker.
Gail wrote: "I agree with you, Jim, but being (getting) older, we know...verbiage changes with the times. Whereas once there were Secretaries, now they are Administrative Assistance, Janitors are now Custodians..."Gail,
Your comment reminds me of that of another author. He wrote: "A rose by any other name is still a rose.".
Isn't a publisher just another middleman in a world chock-full of middlemen? Doesn't a lot of dreck get published regardless of whether there is a publisher or not? What makes someone of that title the arbiter of what is publishable? In the end, are they not just business people, i.e. investors who -- granted -- may provide valuable insight, but make their decisions largely on what they believe will be marketable? No doubt, I could use the valuable services of an editor, but it seems to me that publishing is more of a financial decision. People like Stephen King received countless (though he counted) rejection letters. He was young and in experienced, but he was also fresh and new at the time.My limited experience has been in both publishing and reviewing scientific papers for the so-called refereed journals. Believe me, a lot of stuff gets published there simply because the publishers got paid and they found enough people to do so. Much of the alleged science that went into them remains alleged in my humble opinion. In the end, a publisher functions in large part as a marketing agent. This is what Amazon/Kindle are doing and everyone believes that is where one has to go. They grabbed a large part of the marketplace such as it is and they believe they determine the rules just as publishers have in the past. They are in a fight right now along with publishers over the prices of e-books. It's not about taste in books. It is about who controls what is published and how much they can squeeze out of us. After all, did not Mary Shelly have to publish as a man because that was not acceptable to do as a woman?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/202...
Michael wrote: "Isn't a publisher just another middleman in a world chock-full of middlemen? Doesn't a lot of dreck get published regardless of whether there is a publisher or not? What makes someone of that title..."Not only Mary Shelley, but also the Bronte sisters, George Elliot and George Sand. Probably others, too.
You are right about publishers, though. Most will only consider a book if it is by a successful author or a celebrity. (And I'm sceptical about celebrity books. Are they really by that person, or ghost written?) and those are the ones they devote their marketing to. And although I'm published on Amazon, I don't like much of their modus operandi. It doesn't favour authors.
I'm also published via KDP and Amazon. It seems that we do the work and they rake in the profits. I'm wondering whether to get my book (a novel ) book published by a small independent publisher (if I can) and then get it into bookstores. I've sold about 180 on Amazon and I don't have that big a family! Have you thought of doing something similr? I'm writing a second novel at the moment and don't want to repeat the same mistakes..
Not very long ago, authors were usually identified utilizing one of three categories: traditionally published, self-published, or published by a vanity press.
For whatever reason, many self-published writers now refer to themselves as being an 'indie' (independent) author.
An author is either traditionally published, self-published, or utilizes the services of a vanity press. All authors are independent!. They write when, how, and if they wish. Unless, of course, a contract (to which they have independently agreed) stipulates otherwise. So, the title of a published writer is simply 'Author'.
The quality of the technical writing knowledge and application, narrative style, and entertainment value determine whether a book is good, mediocre, or not worth reading, not the method of publication.