Amazon Kindle discussion
Who reads independent authors? Why or why not?
Mel wrote: "Since getting my kindle back in January, I read nothing but Indie books.I've just finished The Righteous and found it a real eye opener.
I think sampling a book first gives the reader a rough id..."
Couldn't agree more. If I walk into a bookstore (there are still bookstores out there, right...?) and find a book that looks interesting, I'll have a brief chance to flip through a few pages and read the jacket or the back. I may have picked it up because I had a friend's recommendation. Or I've read the author and enjoy her work. Or maybe the cover caught my eye, and I'm going in cold.
Regardless, I get just those few minutes or so. You know the ones - where someone I'm with is pulling on me to go, and someone else is complaining because they can't find the reference section?
But I can read a Kindle Sample. I can click on a button on the side of the store page, wait one second, and then read a number of pages that are a good, solid representation of what I'm buying. If I love it, I can click "buy" on the last page in the Sample. And if I don't like it, I can delete it and not owe a thing.
We all know that we get a feel for a book at the start, and here, we're given the start of these books. I can find out what I'm getting.
I love that. So I say sample whatever looks interesting, read through all or part of a sample, and pull together a list of great, inexpensive, independent books.
(If only they'd start doing that at movies...)
Are we drawing a distinction here between 'indie' and 'self-published'??
I think of an "indie" author as one who self-published, i.e. independently of any publishing house. "Traditionally published" would be through a publishing house.The terms "indie" and "self-published" may originally have meant "published via a small independent publishing house" and "published via print-on-demand" respectively but they have evolved to be synonymous as far as general usage goes.
Actually, the term “self-published” predates POD. I was originally self-published in the early1980’s, which involved contracting a local printer (not a vanity press) for a production run. The second printing was picked-up by Macmillan publishing in 1986.But, yes, I think today the terms are used more-or-less used synonymously. I saw a few threads where people were trying to refine the definitions of indie author vs. self-published and to me they seemed largely equivalent.
What I like about being an indie author is the fact that I can write a story uninhibited by marketing categories, length, or restricting “formulas” imposed by publishers.I became an indie author because of “The Last Apprentice”. It was strictly an 18-month labor of love that topped out at 170,000 words. It was a story I had to tell about the events leading to the sinking of Atlantis
But when I took it to a publisher (and I had already been previously published by the Big 6 under another name) it was turned down because it was: too long, contained elements from too many genres (in this case mythology, legend, sci-fi, and fantasy), did not fit one of their predefined marketing channels, and/or was difficult to pin-down its predominant genre. This was despite the fact that editors enjoyed the book and found no fault with its storyline, writing, or execution. On the indie author market it pulls 4.5 stars.
In short, an indie author can write the story the way they envision it without some dip telling him/her to add a steamy sex scene, lose 25,000 words, change the free-spirited lesbian character to a stiff in a business suit, or whatever.
Anne-Mhairi wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I've come up with this new idea before self-publishing my book. I'm posting it as a blog story to get feedback on each chapter. This helps knowing what your audience wants and they ..."I'm not writing to make sales, I'm writing to just share my stories possibly just get my name out there. In a way I'm practicing. And, I do have a book I am publishing without sharing any of it's contents as well.
Hello everyone,I'm an Indie that also reads Indie books on occasion. When I was first trying to get reviews for my book, I noticed how overwhelmed book bloggers were with submissions. So myself and a group of other writers (some published and some not) formed a review site called Good Book Alert. Because we are writers, we only review books we can give 3 to 5 stars and our goal is to find books that deserve to be noticed. Why make readers wade through 1 and 2 star reviews?
So the submissions started pouring in. I will tell you honestly that (since we're all a bunch of picky writers) it can be hard to find a book we want to review. So we reject a lot of books. If a book has a lot of typos and other such problems, we let the author know and will not review it.
However, I have found some good reads all by Indie and small press publishers. There is some good stuff out there that will never get a chance for various reasons. For example, a reader comes to the Amazon page, likes the book description, but sees it's Indie published and because of prior bad experiences will not even sample it.
Anyway, I thought I'd share this for those who have become turned off from Indie books. I understand your frustration, but there are good Indie books out there. So if you find something interesting, sample first. It's free.
Great idea, Cindy. I like that you let the author know why you won't review something.
love indie writers like xtx, jeff chon, mike young, vaughn simmons, tao lin, (quality writing and price) my kindle is always with me (so many great titles available)
Did anyone see the this week's Entertainment Weekly article and review about Amanda Hocking and John Locke? It touched on a point we've been discussing here - basically, the posed question was Sure, 99 cent ebooks may sell, but are they any good? And they certainly implied that they aren't any good, something a number of people here would challenge.Check it out if you get a chance.
Do you happen to have a link to the article?
Cindy wrote: "Do you happen to have a link to the article?"http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20511...
I didn't want to take up the space in the discussion comments, but if anyone's interested, my thoughts are here:
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
I think it's easy for any reviewer (if they want to) to pick out sentences in a book and take them out of context to make a book look bad. Especially sentences that can look cheesy without the rest of the pargraph. But, of course, readers probably won't realize how easy that is to do. In general, the books just weren't for him. Why be so scathing about it? This is just another person who looks down on the self-published. The books that have been vetted by the big houses are the only ones of any worth. A few typos and omg...it's because it's self-published. Well, I find typos and grammar mistakes in books published by the big houses too, but those never get mentioned.
Sorry for rambling.
I like to read books. I don't have a huge budget. I like to read in English but I live in the Netherlands, so books are either not available, expensive, or I had to buy them abroad (UK/US) with hefty shipping fees. So I got a Kindle, and I started trying some indie authors. I have read some bad indie novels, and some pretty damn good ones. The same as with novels from traditional publishing, in fact. Somewhere up in this thread, there was this argument whether you should expect less from indie authors. To me, the argument is different: it's a question of how the quality of a novel balances against its price.
When I buy a novel at $ 2.99 and I really enjoy it, it brings me a bit more pleasure than a $ 14.99 novel of equal quality. The reading experience is similar, but knowing I got the one for cheap provides extra satisfaction. Now I understand why my wife loves shopping during sales...
Pricing does matter, and there are plenty of good indie books to find under $ 5.00.
Also, the good thing about checking out indies on your kindle is the possibility to download a free sample. Once I've read a sample, I usually know whether I have a book that I will or will not enjoy, and can make an educated purchase.
I read that EW article and it did seem unnecessarily harsh. To be honest, I don't think price necessarily reflects on quality. Personally I'll be releasing the first book in my series at something like $2.99. But when I release the second one I'll reduce the first to $0.99 to encourage readers to buy that one first. The sentences the reviewer lifted from AH's latest don't seem constructed particularly well, but that doesn't mean it's an accurate reflection on the rest of the book.
"Anyone with enough money can publish a book" -- true"Anybody with enough money can run for president" --true
The poor underdog is sometimes the best person for the leadership. With a strong platform, charisma, pleasantness, and performance, s/he may get the backing and votes s/he need.
Not all politicians are worth your vote, not all books are worth the buy.
Readers vote with their buys.
Indies--part of our great democracy.
My reading habit is probably split 50/50 between indie and traditional.As said previously, the sample function is a life saver.
I read both. It depends on whether or not the story sounds interesting to me. Just be sure to check out the sample before paying. I have seen typos and mistakes from the best of them. I have seen something in almost every book that will have you scratching your head in mid sentence. With less people involved in the publishing process, there will be more mistakes slipping through. It depends on what you consider acceptable. If the story is good, I can tolerate an occasional mistake. I have been disappointed by good story ideas that were to poorly written to be readable though.
I've just started reading independent novels and I may publish one later this year. I too have been put off by writing that could be tightened, plots that weren't quite there and characters I didn't care about. To be fair, besides the grammar/spelling issues, I've seen these same detractors in traditionally published novels as well. I've been trying to read more book blogs and download more samples before buying. It might be one dollar or even just five dollars, but it's more the time it takes me to read that I'm concerned about.
Libby wrote: "I've been trying to read more book blogs and download more samples before buying. It might be one dollar or even just five dollars, but it's more the time it takes me to read that I'm concerned about. "I hear you. I too am worried about how much reading I have been able to do lately. I seem to be reading less since I have started writing. Writing eats up a lot of time. Don't get me wrong, I love writing. I just wish I could continue to read as much as I used to. Reading fuels my imagination. I have found that it is easy to pick up the Kindle whenever I have a chance and I have been reading more lately.
So yeah, you seem to investigate that next read a little more than you used to when you had time to throw away. But then again, back in the day, I used to spend a lot of time going to that brick and mortar shop looking for my next read. Getting there, Looking through the shelves, Thumbing through the pages and reading the back cover. I probably spend less time sampling and picking up, or downloading a book to read than I used to. I think the real issue for me is that I just don't have the time I used to have.
@Bill - I used to do the same at brick and mortars. I will miss Borders. But yeah, samples online are great and friend recommendations go a LONG way with me.
There was this one novel I was reading for a review and I found the same mistake twice in the same paragraph. The word 'lightening' should have been 'lightning', and so I told the author about it. She then told me that her story had been professionally edited, so she was rather upset about it. I didn't consider it a big deal and I still reviewed the book, of course. It was an excellent read.
I often hear many saying that you have to get your book professionally edited. Well, I've also heard other stories like this one where the editor missed things. This is because it's extremely hard to catch everything in a novel length book.
I understand reader frustration with poorly edited novels, but I just hope that most readers can be understanding about the occasional typo. How can Indies offer cheap books and afford a staff of editors?
Cindy wrote: "There was this one novel I was reading for a review and I found the same mistake twice in the same paragraph.
The word 'lightening' should have been 'lightning', and so I told the author about it..."
I agree. Even traditionally published novels have typos. They are nearly unavoidable in novel length works. I think it's when the typos are gross in number that readers get frustrated.
The word 'lightening' should have been 'lightning', and so I told the author about it..."
I agree. Even traditionally published novels have typos. They are nearly unavoidable in novel length works. I think it's when the typos are gross in number that readers get frustrated.
Patrick wrote: "Did anyone see the this week's Entertainment Weekly article and review about Amanda Hocking and John Locke? It touched on a point we've been discussing here - basically, the posed question was Sure..."I thought it was very harsh. I know I might sound a little cynical here, but I'm wondering if one of the 'Big' publishing houses hand a hand in that article! ;-)
Libby - I agree. Numerous typos aren't acceptable. Mel - I was thinking the same thing..lol.
Patrick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Do you happen to have a link to the article?"http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20511...
I didn't want to take up the space in the discussion comments, but if anyone's int..."
I feel the people have spoken. I mean someone must like reading Amanda Hocking and John Locke. If they weren't any good we wouldn't be buying up their books. And lets face it, a lot of people buy their books.
BTW Patrick, I liked your commentary.
At the risk of not being the champion of self-pubbed authors that I'd like to be, I have to say I didn't mind the article. Amanda has admitted to having editing issues, and the article's author does say she tells a compelling story... I didn't find it the hatchet job I thought it was going to be. People (including me) talk about Dan Brown's hacky writing, but that doesn't mean I haven't read his books, lol.
Elle wrote: "As an independent author, i am always curious to know how many people who have Kindles actually read self-published authors? I would love to know why or why not?"I read about fifty-fifty, I think. I pick books on a combination of blurb, reviews, and then the Kindle sample. I don't look at the publisher; I don't care. Bad formatting will put me off, but in my experience new indie books are often better than older traditionally-published books that have been scanned into digital form and then not corrected. The only real difference for me is that I'm much more likely to email the author to tell them I enjoyed the book, if it's indie, and I'm also more likely to get around to cross-posting my reviews from here onto Amazon.
I have to admit, I have never considered the publisher when making my decision about whether or not to buy a book. I only decided to go indie a few months ago, but I've been buying books for about 25 years and the publisher has never been a consideration.
Cindy wrote: "I understand reader frustration with poorly edited novels, but I just hope that most readers can be understanding about the occasional typo. How can Indies offer cheap books and afford a staff of editors? "I had help editing my book. I went through it several times myself and then had someone else go through it with me before I thought it was good enough to put up for sale. But paying anyone to help me with the book right now is just not something I can afford. The person who helped me was being more than generous.
Bill wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I understand reader frustration with poorly edited novels, but I just hope that most readers can be understanding about the occasional typo. How can Indies offer cheap books and affor..."I think the occasional typo is fine. Let's be honest, most traditionally published books don't make it to the shelves without a couple of typos. The thing is, that's all you can have. Literally two or three in an entire 75k word (or more) novel. It's worth reading the damn thing ten times or more to make sure you get as many as humanly possible. But I don't think paying for an editor is strictly necessary. You just have to be willing to put in that minutely detailed effort yourself, and know a couple of other people who will also be willing to do that for you.
I honestly don't mind typos as long as there are not so many that it destroys the story's flow. When I read an indie book I make notes of mistakes and will email the authors with the locations when I am done.
It is not just typos and grammar that a great editor catches. S/he also spots inconsistencies in the plot, settings that are unclear to the reader, situations that need research and/or clarification, verbosity, repetitive words and phrases...the list goes on. If one is reading a polished piece of work, one is immersed in the story and totally unaware of the words/writing.
Eileen wrote: "It is not just typos and grammar that a great editor catches. S/he also spots inconsistencies in the plot, settings that are unclear to the reader, situations that need research and/or clarificatio..."I agree. I always think of issues in areas like those - spelling, continuity, POV and tense, etc. - as creating seams in the reading, sort of like an uneven sidewalk. You come to them unexpectedly, you step awkwardly or maybe even stumble a little, and you're taken out of the book's world for a moment.
The degree can be great or small - I may just shake my head and go on, but sometimes I also find myself going back through pages to make sure I read an earlier part correctly.
As a number of others have suggested, the occasional typo isn't the problem, the overall feel of the book is. If it's impacted enough that I'm working to stay in the author's world, then I don't want to be in that world. In a case like that, it becomes an issue of toleration versus payoff, and at least for me the story or the characters or the style have to be fantastic to overcome a persistent problem with the mechanics of the presentation.
I'm reading an Amanda Hocking book right now. It's not really my cup of tea (since I'm 46 and not 16, lol), but that's a matter of taste, not a reflection on the quality of the book itself. Ms. Hocking is a talented writer, imho, and from what I've heard, she works hard to make her writing the best it can be. For example, she hired an editor to help her with her books. I'm confident that my 13 and 16 yo daughters would love her books.
Patrick wrote: "Eileen wrote: "It is not just typos and grammar that a great editor catches. S/he also spots inconsistencies in the plot, settings that are unclear to the reader, situations that need research and/..."I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, but I'm thinking now of the Grand Inquisitor scene in The Brothers Karamazov. Excuse me if I'm revealing that I'm a philistine, but it's about 75 pages of deeply boring yodeling. Yet it's a great book. And in a backhanded way the scene contributes to the whole, in that it let's you know, in case you wondered, that Dostoyevsky has got a few things on his mind other than your immediate entertainment. A modern editor would have whacked it in a heartbeat, but whether that would have been good or bad, well, I'm not so sure.
Excuse me if I'm revealing that I'm a philistine, but it's about 75 pages of deeply boring yodeling.Lol!
I haven't read The Brothers Karamozov (although, I've read Anna Karenina, and you are right about literary books containing a lot of extra (some might say) unnecessary prose. I'm also halfway through Moby Dick, but I just can't get past the section in which he exhaustively catalogues whales!
Writing has changed a great deal. Even authors like Stephen King and Joyce Carol Oats are considered too wordy for today's readers. Editors do help a great deal (I've always benefited from their advice, any way), but at the same time, these things can be subjective, too.
Ha, Moby Dick! You could read it not as literature but as a how-to guide to whaling. I felt like I had a decent idea of how to get a chunk of whale into a blubber pot by the time I was done. No point in going on about the old days, good or bad, but I do like that occasionally wandering quality of the classics. The narrative-on-rails character of the "well-edited" modern book can tucker you out if it's all you ever get.
Ha, Moby Dick! You could read it not as literature but as a how-to guide to whaling.Now I know how to spend my retirement!
Anthony wrote: "I'm thinking now of the Grand Inquisitor scene in The Brothers Karamazov. Excuse me if I'm revealing that I'm a philistine, but it's about 75 pages of deeply boring yodeling. Yet it's a great book."I completely agree. But isn't there a difference between a book that gets some of its texture and value specifically from its structure (warts and all) versus a book that's simply not proofed well enough?
I look at Cormac McCarthy the same way. I love the Border Trilogy, and literature teachers will throw around terms like "polysyndeton" and focus on the rhythm of the language and be right. At the same time, the ragged punctuation, run-on sentences, and florid prose can be a challenge.
They're still great books, with part of their greatness being defined by their form, which provides a definable rhythm to the words. That's toleration versus payoff again, and for me in this case, the feel of those books is enough for me.
I'd like to think an editor would see a piece of literature and know it is a piece of literature in its existing form, even where that's bumpy. And an editor would also know a mistake that can be weeded out. Sure, that's not always the case. It may not even usually be the case. But it is the job, and it is the ideal.
I think we're agreed that editing is an art of its own. I'm still trying to decode my own point here. I think it's that the temper of the times argues against that stroll through the woods that used to be fairly common in novels. This time I'm thinking of Tolstoy ventilating his theory of history about two dozen times during the course of War and Peace. Maybe I'm just dreaming when I think that there used to be more tolerance for this sort of thing. And maybe if I saw more of it in modern lit I'd think, Give me a break. But as much as I agree the world could use more editing, not less, I also think that editors can impose a kind of tyranny of style, especially if they are clustered in one or two zip codes, socialize with each other, compare notes routinely and trade jobs back and forth. This is more light theorizing than deeply held belief, however.
Christina wrote: "At the risk of not being the champion of self-pubbed authors that I'd like to be, I have to say I didn't mind the article. Amanda has admitted to having editing issues..."I'd agree with you and EW on this. I only read the first of the My Blood Approves books, but it really did read like something she wrote as a teenager, dusted off years later, and published without any editing in the interim. I will grant that she has a good story to tell (ignoring, for the moment, the abundance of similarities between My Blood Approves and Twilight), though I don't think she has the technical skills to back it up. The same can be said of many indie and some trad pub authors (I'm looking at you, King and Rowling!), but indies seem far more susceptible to conflating the two than do trad pubs.
Anthony wrote: "Patrick wrote: "Eileen wrote: "It is not just typos and grammar that a great editor catches. S/he also spots inconsistencies in the plot, settings that are unclear to the reader, situations that ne..."
I'll agree with Anthony as well. What was acceptable in a novel is different than what is acceptable in a novel now. I just read Sense and Sensibility for the first time and half way through I thought to myself, "Am I reading a novel of conversations about what people think and conversations about their pasts?" And yes, yes I was. Now, the writing is more immediate, more scene oriented.
I think there are still writers that can get away with a more verbally robust style, like Ian McEwan. I've read two by him and they're delightful and the prose is delicious (in my opinion). That is the exception, not the rule.
I'll agree with Anthony as well. What was acceptable in a novel is different than what is acceptable in a novel now. I just read Sense and Sensibility for the first time and half way through I thought to myself, "Am I reading a novel of conversations about what people think and conversations about their pasts?" And yes, yes I was. Now, the writing is more immediate, more scene oriented.
I think there are still writers that can get away with a more verbally robust style, like Ian McEwan. I've read two by him and they're delightful and the prose is delicious (in my opinion). That is the exception, not the rule.
Michelle wrote: "Writing has changed a great deal. Even authors like Stephen King and Joyce Carol Oats are considered too wordy for today's readers..."Isn't this another way of saying that reading habits have changed and writers have been forced to adapt their writing to suit readers?
My suspicion is that there's a reader for just about anything. For some the telegraphic style is perfect, and an adverb is a crime against nature. For me, well, you can heap it on quite a bit more thickly. The trick for the reader, I think, is in recognizing when you've wandered into the wrong room, and accepting that it's not necessarily that the writing is awful. It may just not be for you.
I'm an indie author, and I sample other indies extensively. Like most everyone here, I've found some gems, and a lot of stuff that's just not ready. It's frustrating for me, because I hear the readers complaining about bad editing and bad writing. Yes, there is a lot of bad writing out there. There is a lot of writing that I don't care for, but plenty of folks are okay with it. There is some really good stuff. I urge everyone to SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE. It's so easy! I LOVE sampling. You will find the gold if you are willing to do a little digging for it. And usually, it's dirt cheap!
I'm loving this thread. It's great to see that a lot of people are willing to take chances on indie authors. I can understand that some have been put off by bad experiences, but the sample feature will hopefully save us :)
Amazon Kindle
Books mentioned in this topic
The Red Church (other topics)Blood Mountain (other topics)
Liquid Fear (other topics)
They Hunger (other topics)
Anna Karenina (other topics)
More...
Bear in mind that if you post it up for free before putting it on sale, you might lose sales. A writer I know put chapters up for free week by week but a while after she released the book and she had a second book available to be bought - in that situation it worked well for drawing in new readers. I'm not sure if putting it up for free straight off will have the same effect.