Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
II. Publishing & Marketing Tips
>
Do self-published ebooks have a bad reputation?
Jim wrote: "However, those with built-in commercial value, such as a well-known politician, athlete, entertainer, etc., ................... are given preferred treatment by a publisher."Which is the exact reason I prefer to read SPA books these days Jim. I would rather have an honest to goodness first novel from a real writer (allowing for the odd typo) than something ghostwritten for any of the above.
Christine wrote: "So you went on for hours on this thread when the problem was on Amazon?...You have no respect for the members on this site"First off, I have absolutely no problem with Amazon, or reviewers in general, and I do respect the members on this site. I have already apologized that I didn't specify that I wasn't talking about Goodreads, but reviewing books in general. Frankly, it didn't occur to me that the discussion was only about reviewers on Goodreads. Nothing in the posts I've read said this. Because this thread is titled "Do self-published e-books have a bad reputation?", I believed the tread was mostly from a writers point of view, hence the the perspective of my initial posts. I also apologize for this assumption.
In any event, you state "They're not lazy or unprofessional - and they're not stupid. They recognize when they've been insulted and degraded on social media." Really? I've insulted you by saying you should say more in a review besides I hate/love this book? Are you telling me that is how you personally do your reviews? Truly, I don't think so. I tried looking at your list of books read here on Goodreads, and I didn't see any written reviews by you. You just gave them a star rating. I think that is just great. For whatever reason, you chose not to write reviews, you didn't post meaningless information. Awesome. My comment about lazy reviewers was not directed at you. I do not believe it is lazy to utilize the rating system and not post a review. I doubt anybody who is taking offense really reviews the way I describe because they are serious enough about reading/writing to be a member of Goodreads. If anybody does take offense because they do review in this way (just to be clear, on book selling sites), then there is nothing more to be said. They know who and what they are, and I won't apologize for that. If you can take the time to write "I hate/love this book", it only takes a second more to say "I hate/love this book because . . ."
Tom, please! First the complaint about reviews on GR, of which you have none, and now you're arguing with readers?
Amazon reviews are customer reviews, i.e. product reviews.
GR reviews are member reviews, i.e. private opinions.
Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Tom wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Tom, being a writer, I'm sure you understand the concept of tone. You DEMANDING anything was very off putting. Which is why Chris..."Sorry. I didn't look closely enough. You did not start that and I apologize.
Tom wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Tom wrote: "Paganalexandria **wicked juices bubbling over** wrote: "Tom, being a writer, I'm sure you understand the concept of tone.You DEMANDING anything was very off putting. Which is why Chris..."Sorry. I didn't look closely enough. You did not start that and I apologize.
"
Tom, I appreciate, and accept the apology. We're good. Thank you for that.
A friend just said this to me, and I believe it worth sharing: People love to fight online. Text is a medium that suggests offense even when none is intended. Be careful out there.
I'll definitely take this advice. I enjoy online discussions and debates, but the last thing I want is to offend.
Once an intelligent debate, intended to settle or at least definitively establish the reasons for differences in opinion, deteriorates into a spitting match, the outcome is always predictable. Nothing will be settled and all of the participants will end up covered in spit.
Jim wrote: "Once an intelligent debate, intended to settle or at least definitively establish the reasons for differences in opinion, deteriorates into a spitting match, the outcome is always predictable. Noth..."Well expressed and I agree completely. Time to do other things. I think Tom may have forgotten he is on a private site and the only people who could see his comments are Goodreads members.
Linda wrote: "There is pretty much no way a review can be unbiased, Roger, because a review is a personal perspective..."I disagree. According to Webster, the definition of bias is, "a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly".
Google's definition is, "1.prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair".
Bias tends toward unfairness. A biased review is an opinion based on an unfair assessment, like when a reviewer has a beef against an author for some reason, and lets that bias influence the review. Even an amateur reviewer has a responsibility to give an unbiased opinion. Unbiased does not mean unfeeling. What the reviewer felt is more meaningful than simply retelling the plot. I don't want a retelling of the plot, I want to know how the reviewer honestly felt about the writing and the story.
If a book is riddled with spelling errors and bad grammar, then I want to know that too. It may be an influencing factor. But I don't want someone ranting and raving about how horrible the author is because of those errors. A review should not contain a personal attack. That's unethical.
I also think paying for a good review is unethical.
Roger wrote: "Linda wrote: "There is pretty much no way a review can be unbiased, Roger, because a review is a personal perspective..."I disagree. According to Webster, the definition of bias is, "a tendency ..."
Let's be honest if readers catered to every author's specific proper review etiquette, nothing would be reviewed. In this group alone, I've seen authors complain about short, long, insensitive, too fangirl-ish, low rating without details, low rating with mean details, one stars before publication, five stars before publication people reading books out of their genre, people never going outside favorite themes, waiting too late after receiving free, unprofessional, too professional blogger with ulterior motives, etc. It's crazy at this point.
Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang Froid) wrote: "Amazon reviews are customer reviews, i.e. product reviews.GR reviews are member reviews, i.e. private opinions. "
Exactly. There may be overlap, but Amazon and Goodreads reviews do not serve the same function.
Goodreads reviews aren't for authors. I would go a step further and say they don't have to be for readers either. Many people use the site to catalogue their books rather than discuss them or advise others, and their reviews can reflect that. A review can even be about something like genre preference ("This book reminds me why I don't like to read Westerns"). That is completely within the Goodreads TOS whether others find it useful or not.
Goodreads has some great features in that regard. You can friend/follow the people whose reviews you find useful or even just because you enjoy reading them. If reviews saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" or "I liked this book because it had a good storyline" aren't helpful, don't follow that reviewer. You didn't pay the reviewer, he owes you nothing, and it's easy enough to move on.
Something else to consider - sometimes an "I liked it" review can actually be helpful if you know the reviewer and her tastes. Even a star rating alone can be useful to me from a reviewer I know.
There are a lot of ways to use Goodreads, all of them valid. Amazon and Goodreads reviews are not interchangeable. Rather than trying to change everyone's reviews to suit one person's preference, we should trust other readers to know what to do with them.
Lisa wrote: "Jim wrote: "However, those with built-in commercial value, such as a well-known politician, athlete, entertainer, etc., ................... are given preferred treatment by a publisher."Which is the exact reason I prefer to read SPA books these days Jim. I would rather have an honest to goodness first novel from a real writer (allowing for the odd typo) than something ghostwritten for any of the above..."
I would like to add a corollary to D.C.'s wanting to scream when people bring up J.K. Rowling. I want to scream when I hear this argument. The fact that Snooki or Paris Hilton or Tila frickin' Tequila had a ghostwritten book published does not singlehandedly invalidate traditional publishing. Yes, it makes me despair for the future of civilization, but I have a hard time believing publishers are saying, "Well, this guy could be the next Philip Roth, but we're going with Tila instead."
Sarah (Warning: Potentially Off-Topic) wrote: " but I have a hard time believing publishers are saying, "Well, this guy could be the next Philip Roth, but we're going with Tila instead." ..."Well . . . Jack Cady (won multiple major awards, Publishers Weekly compared him favorably with Steinbeck and Faulkner) finally had to go with an Australian publisher after his first books, two of them well received. American publishers didn't know how to categorize his work. http://twilightridge.net/blog/what-th...
Shame he was fifteen or twenty years too early to be an Indie.
Renee wrote: "Well . . . Jack Cady (won multiple major awards, Publishers Weekly compared him favorably with Steinbeck and Faulkner) finally had to go with an Australian publisher after his first books, two of them well received. American publishers didn't know how to categorize his work. http://twilightridge.net/blog/what-th...Shame he was fifteen or twenty years too early to be an Indie. "
He was published and won several awards. Are you saying he would have had more recognition if he were self-published?
No, I'm saying he wouldn't have had to sit on manuscripts for nine years. And he might well have been better recognized without that nine years out of the reading public's eye.
We'll never know. He's gone now.
I am blown away by his work.
Renee wrote: "No, I'm saying he wouldn't have had to sit on manuscripts for nine years. And he might well have been better recognized without that nine years out of the reading public's eye.
We'll never know...."
The problem we have now is that there may be great writers out there self publishing, in fact I know there are, but their work is awfully hard to find in the dreck. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
I have trouble finding anything worth reading in the dreck being published, period. The big houses are some of the worst. I don't want to read the latest Dan Brown, Ken Follet, the Written by Committees with A Big Name Author Getting the Credit, the next Twilight, Zombie Apocalypse or However Many Shades of Whatever, the next celebrity confessional or How You Can Make Believe You're as Awesome as Me .
But a lot of the reading or semi-reading public obviously does, and that's who publishing houses target. There is no impetus for them to find the next Phillip Roth. It's up to the next Phillip Roth to make him or herself known to us, and the new world of Indie publishing makes it a possibility.
But whether you lean to picking your reading by how it's published and going with big name houses or by looking through titles, blurbs and reviews, you're going to have to wade through a lot of crap to get to the good stuff.
In regards to the thread question, I actually read quite a lot of SP books because of a few favorite sub-genres and themes that are hard to find in traditionally published books. I've found quite a few great books, and some train wrecks too. To be honest, before the ereader boom, I didn't notice a big difference in quality between the two. Ebooks are a blessing and a curse because now there are way more books featuring little fringe themes, but at the same time lowered the bar on quality control. So to an extent, ebooks have given self publishing a bad reputation.
If you're going to go with a publishing house, you'd better fit solidly into a genre or they don't know how to sell it. They're in it to make lots of money, pay the CEOs their bonuses and keep the stockholders happy. Can't fault 'em for that. It's how the business is set up.
But the power is shifting now. Change. Most people don't like change. People who are making money the old way hate change and will do anything they can to strangle it in its infancy. It's a survival trait. Either do that or find a way to adapt and thrive with the changes.
Renee wrote: "If you're going to go with a publishing house, you'd better fit solidly into a genre or they don't know how to sell it. They're in it to make lots of money, pay the CEOs their bonuses and keep th..."
Concentrating the control of publishing into the hands of an ever-decreasing number of huge companies is not a good thing. Having more options for getting books out there is better for readers and writers. It has also been nice to see some older books get a new life as authors self publish their backlists. But I have a hard time seeing self-publishing as a panacea for the problem of great but under-appreciated authors. Just as with traditional publishing, most of what's self-published tends towards the commercial. Quirkier, harder to categorize books still get lost in the shuffle.
Don't get me wrong - I would love to see the next truly great novel, something really new and inventive, come from self-publishing and succeed. But I think it's an uphill battle for a book like that via any path.
You're right. It is an uphill battle for a book like that, no matter what the path. If you're looking to be rich and famous, writing isn't the surest way to get there, lol.
Linda wrote: "Someone says the plot has gigantic holes in it? If the writer takes that to heart, she may end up looking for holes that aren't there. And what's she going to do if it does have huge gaps in logic? Rewrite it? What would that accomplish? She can't undo what that reader has already experienced."Skipping the issue we will never agree upon, I'll say I understand the point you are making about the topic quoted above. As an author I know full well to expect contradictory reviews, or that reviewers may not be correct on their assessment. I don't entirely agree with the concept that nothing should be done about issues a reviewer may be correct on.
An otherwise positive review made about my first novel said that, in my story, set in the year 2078, that I gave the U.S.A. the same enemies as today, and that more geopolitical factors should have been weighed in. This comment was true, but I didn't let it bother me because experience has shown international politics change so rapidly, not even the best political scientist could accurately predict future changes. The comment did help me to be more aware of such things in my following books. He also commented that he didn't think the U.S. Space program would have slowed down as much as my novel suggested. I didn't think that opinion was valid, and just let it roll off me. 13 years later, our space program has shown signs of slowing down far more than even I expected. On this, my opinion turned out more accurate. The space program did do something that effected the accuracy of my book, however. The U.S. dumped the space shuttle, and that was still in use in my novel. Since I'm a self published author, and made the novel available on Kindle, I was able to go back and make changes accordingly. Sure, those people who bought the paperback versions couldn't benefit from the changes, but the readers who purchased it on the Kindle can. What's more, if any of my novels need tweaking for whatever reason, not only can I make those changes fairly rapidly, but the people who already own it on a Kindle will get those changes. And positive reviews, like the one I listed in a previous post, told me I held his attention and kept him guessing about what would happen next. His comment helps me to continue to strive to do more of this in my writing.
Sure, not every author has the ability (or self-confidence) to take criticism and may do stupid things like give up writing. I've had the pleasure of being part of two awesome critique groups. Being in groups such as these would be brutal on anyone who can't handle criticism, or don't have the temperament to analyze what is said about their work and take to heart what is useful, and disregard what is not. In one of my novels, I'd even went so far at to add a complete secondary story line because of comments made by the group. My point is, I do believe there is value in reading reviews of my work, from whatever source. (And once again I'll point out I do not expect reviewers to be my editors!) If the reviews of your books do not offer you anything of value, then of course you don't have to pay attention to them. I wouldn't dream of telling you that you should. Remember, though, there are a lot of writers like me who do find them useful.
Linda wrote: ""Didn't know how to categorize his work" is a euphemism for "He writes very well, but not enough people are going to like what he writes so we can't sell enough to make it worth our while.""
I could be entirely wrong here, but from the outside of the book industry (just a reader wanting to pick up a good read) I found the big publishing houses impacted negatively on creativity. The big publishing houses decimated the independent presses. This wasn't good because the industry got complacent and was driven mostly by profit margins; it continued churning out generic and formulaic fiction, which year on year was decreasing in both quality and creativity. Perhaps this is one of the major reason why self-publishing kicked off, not just because technology allowed it, but because there was a market out there that was tired of being proscribe by the Big 5/6 publishing houses what their tastes in books should be. If the traditional publishing houses had spent more time looking for those gems, rather pumping up their brand authors then perhaps literature wouldn't have become so stuck in a rut and unappealing as it did do for myself and many other people I know who loved reading but were just disappointed with what was on offer. As a reader, I for one have more choice now with self-publishing and secondly the added competition is shaking up the traditional publishing houses which in my opinion can only be a good thing as I'm certainly seeing 'better' work coming out of the traditional publishing houses.
I could be entirely wrong here, but from the outside of the book industry (just a reader wanting to pick up a good read) I found the big publishing houses impacted negatively on creativity. The big publishing houses decimated the independent presses. This wasn't good because the industry got complacent and was driven mostly by profit margins; it continued churning out generic and formulaic fiction, which year on year was decreasing in both quality and creativity. Perhaps this is one of the major reason why self-publishing kicked off, not just because technology allowed it, but because there was a market out there that was tired of being proscribe by the Big 5/6 publishing houses what their tastes in books should be. If the traditional publishing houses had spent more time looking for those gems, rather pumping up their brand authors then perhaps literature wouldn't have become so stuck in a rut and unappealing as it did do for myself and many other people I know who loved reading but were just disappointed with what was on offer. As a reader, I for one have more choice now with self-publishing and secondly the added competition is shaking up the traditional publishing houses which in my opinion can only be a good thing as I'm certainly seeing 'better' work coming out of the traditional publishing houses.
D.elliott wrote: "If the traditional publishing houses had spent more time looking for those gems, rather pumping up their brand authors then perhaps literature wouldn't have become so stuck in a rut and unappealing as it did do for myself and many other people I know who loved reading but were just disappointed with what was on offer."That's why I always feel a smirk coming on when anyone mentions trade publishing being the guardians of literature and protectors of literary quality.
This is really interesting. Do you think the same is true of non-fiction as of fiction? I didn't want the bother of touting my books around publishing houses, so I just self-published but with high standards, especially in the writing and editing, and choosing my cover stock and paper carefully for the print editions, which I know is a bit off-topic, but making all of my books available in low-cost e versions on all the platforms. No idea how much I would have sold with a major behind me - or would I have sold any at all?
I read a lot of self-published ebooks. I've seen some really good ones and some really bad ones. I think the key isn't in getting a certain reviewer to increase your credibility. I think the key is for us, as authors, to do it ourselves. We have a responsibility to edit, proof, and format our book to the highest quality we can. Often, this will require that we invest in our book. I think the shortcoming is that many indie authors don't see the business side of publishing, they only focus on the creative side. Both sides are equally important. You must have a good story to tell and a creative way of telling it. On the other hand, you must also present the best product you can to the marketplace. That's where hiring professional cover designers, editors, proofers, and formaters comes in play.
Kandice wrote: "I read a lot of self-published ebooks. I've seen some really good ones and some really bad ones. I think the key isn't in getting a certain reviewer to increase your credibility. I think the key is..."Hear, hear, Kandice! I absolutely agree. A quality product is key for any author (traditional or self-published) to gain success, fans and credibility. Not to mention sales! :)
There is a load of very good self published stuff. Maybe bit harder to find though:)
Ultimately though if the book is rubbish it will fail, no matter how many false reviews folk try and get. I think more folk are drawn to self publishing by the fact that traditional avenues are themselves now just after the quick buck and have lost their own integrity. Maybe I'm just cynical, naive, or both:)
Kandice wrote: "I read a lot of self-published ebooks. I've seen some really good ones and some really bad ones. I think the key isn't in getting a certain reviewer to increase your credibility. I think the key is..."As a self-published author, there was no question that I would hire a professional editor, and do my best to produce a quality product. I'm not only a writer. I'm a reader, and I expect the same from books I read, indie or traditional. I've read many books from publishing houses that were filled with errors; self-publishing doesn't corner the market on poor editing or story writing.
No author should ever disrespect their readers' intelligence nor underestimate their own.Good enough is never good enough. As the adage says: "Anything worth doing is worth doing well."
There is a lot of disparity when it comes to the quality of self-published works. I have found as a reader that the biggest problem of self-published works is that the author seems to have spent the bulk of their money creating an enticing cover to lure in the reader, when they should have allotted more for a good editor. Inconsistent characterization, plot holes, juvenile writing, purple prose, mixed metaphors, and typos are common in indie works.That said, as an author, I am sympathetic to the limitations indie authors face. I am a harsh critic; I used to be more lenient towards indie works, but since so many traditional publishers seem to be repackaging best-selling indie works WITHOUT editing the books, I have stopped cutting them slack. If a self-published author wants to stand on their own the way a traditionally published author would, then they should be judged with the same rubric.
I know my works are not free of typos. I have some beta readers now, which, although not on par with professional editing, has made a definite difference in the quality of my work. I'm definitely limited financially in terms of what I can do. It's easy to tell someone to get an editor and a professional formatter when you have deep pockets, but I'm working two jobs and barely have the energy (and the funds) to do my own day-to-day things, let alone seeking out and interviewing for book stuff.
HOWEVER, that isn't to say that I think I should be cut extra slack. My critics make valid points -- my works do have typos, and my endings and pacing are not always stellar. It's just frustrating that there isn't really much I can do to assuage these issues at this juncture.
Linda wrote: "Jim wrote: "No author should ever disrespect their readers' intelligence nor underestimate their own.Good enough is never good enough. As the adage says: "Anything worth doing is worth doing well...."
Astute observation, Linda; but no.
I was referring to the oft-utilized refrain often posted by sub-par authors that they have neither the money, time, nor inclination to learn standard technical language rules and proven narration techniques.
They underestimate their own capacity to learn and discover inexpensive or low-cost writing programs and/or the appropriate "how-to" books available at their local public library and literary websites.
I so agree with that, Jim. Even if — ESPECIALLY if you've got a story that calls for breaking those rules. You'd better know them inside and out, backward and forward, upside down and right side up, so well that you don't have to think about them, they've become, not second nature, but first nature to you, before you can break them effectively.
I'll respond as if I were getting an answer from reading a magic 8 ball, it all depends on your point of view. It really depends on the individual. Not every SP author's book is crap and not every single SP author is shamelessly going around spamming their book. It's all about being smart and sufficient and knowing how to promote one's book. I suppose before this step it definitely helps by writing and creating a good quality product.Again, just my opinion and I know other will have their own and may see it another way so just my two cents.
Jim wrote: "No author should ever disrespect their readers' intelligence nor underestimate their own.Good enough is never good enough. As the adage says: "Anything worth doing is worth doing well.""
Jim,
I think you're trying to say that everything an author publishes should attain a certain minimum level of quality. If so, I endorse that opinion wholeheartedly.
I'm not so sure about the wording "good enough is never good enough," however. By definition, "good enough" is good enough :)
Seriously, though, no book can ever be perfect. At some point, doesn't every author have to decide, "Ok, it's good enough and hit publish?"
Finding that point of "good enough," however, for an aspiring author who plans to self publish is horribly troublesome. It's hard even to nail down a criteria. Does good enough mean that I would judge my book, if I had picked it up from a random author on Amazon, to be worth the money? What if I have really bad taste? Is there some objective criteria somewhere?
Tres frustrating!
Brian
Even editors who write fiction get editors for their work. A self-published author is starting a small business. If someone were starting a restaurant, a gym or a line of couture fashions or any other business, they would not try to open it until they could hire the staff to make it a success. Even the smallest sole proprietor business has an investment up front of more than time and talent. If a writer thinks of his or her work as a business that should start with a polished and prepared opening, and a good reputation, saving up and starting with a professional product is worth the wait. The book will not suffer for waiting. It might even improve.
Linda wrote: "Jim wrote: "I was referring to the oft-utilized refrain often posted by sub-par authors that they have neither the money, time, nor inclination to learn standard technical language rules and proven..."Linda, I may be wrong but I think you and Jim are alluding to the same thing. There is an old saying, "Good enough for government work."
DISCLAIMER: It's somewhat a slur on government workers, and I don't think government workers are deficient in any way. I'm just using it to make a point.
This phrase was used when someone didn't want to make the effort to do a job well, they just wanted to do enough to say the job was finished.
So, "Good enough" isn't what we should say when we don't want to work on our novel anymore so that we can get it out the door and onto Amazon. We, as authors, should say, "This is the best I can do," and really mean it. Even now, I can read my novels I have published and say, "You know, maybe I could have phrased that better." I could edit forever and never be 100% satisfied.
However, authors can't do that or nothing would get published. There has to be a stopping point, but that point shouldn't be "Good enough". It should be, "I have put my best effort into creating and editing my work, whether I did it myself or paid someone to help me with it."
In that way, "Good enough" really isn't good enough. If it takes five years to put out your best effort, then don't say it's good enough after only two years. Take the full five years to make it your best effort.
Then let your readers be the judge, and accept their verdicts.
We're leaving something out of the equation here: talent. Not everyone possesses (or maybe is possessed by) the talent for writing. Not everyone who has a talent for writing has the talent for writing stories. Just like not everyone who wants to paint portraits or sculpt or bake, play an instrument or write songs, train dogs or any of the other myriad of human endeavors has that particular talent.
There is an art to endeavor, and to succeed at those endeavors it does take work, desire, learning the technical aspects, all the things that have been talked about in this thread. But they all fall short without the spark of talent, and that is the most difficult of all things to ascertain for one's self.
And talent grows and develops, so no, even the most talented writer's first works aren't going to be as good as later ones, if he's serving his talent.
Self-publishing is creating the environment for writing that other arts have lived with, one where each artist is responsible for their own work, for showing it, getting it into the public's consciousness. The visual arts have always been whelmed by numbers of artists of varying talents and lacks thereof. Go to a local arts and crafts show — one that's not juried. You'll see. Writing is the same.
The difference is that in the writing world we are dealing with a long established bulwark that has a vested interest in keeping independent sorts at bay, at least until they can figure out if they can make money off of them. Writers are not artists to most publishers, we're producers, like a factory worker on a line making widgets.
Serve your talent diligently and conscientiously, ethically. That won't guarantee notice or monetary success, at least not in your lifetime, but as an Indie writer you will be able to go on to the next story, growing and knowing that you did, indeed, put your best out there and you can say that out loud to your potential readers.
It's all we've got.
Roger wrote: "Linda wrote: "Jim wrote: "I was referring to the oft-utilized refrain often posted by sub-par authors that they have neither the money, time, nor inclination to learn standard technical language ru..."Roger,
You made the point that I had intended in my post; but much more clearly. Thank you.
I can personally identify with your statement that an author or someone else will always be able to review their work and discover something that they believe could have been better; so, at some point, they just have to let it go.
It took me fourteen months to produce what I felt was a completed, polished manuscript. I was very proud of my work. My ego soared.
Several weeks of working with and learning from the layout design artist, copy editor, and conceptual editor, assigned by the publisher to convert the manuscript into a commercially viable book, gradually deflated my ego as I came to realize that the completed, polished manuscript, of which I had been so proud, was not yet complete nor polished.
I'm 67 years-old and still enjoy life's never-ending new experiences. I learn something new every day.
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever"*
*Mahatma Gandhi (Leader of Indian Nationalism) 1869 - 1948
That's exactly my point, Linda. Something we've got to figure out how to work through. Your flea market analogy is adroit. Maybe — and I need to do more of this myself — part of our jurying process could be in reviewing. Without prejudice, without fear of competition (because it isn't a competition), checking our egos at the keyboard.
The other arts are already either winnowing or are in the process of finding effective means, giving us an outline of sorts, if we can invent ways to use it to suit our purposes.
Music is in the process, a bit farther along than we are in breaking with the established order, but there are the street musicians who play their hearts out, hoping to get noticed — or at least go home with enough cash to feed the cat, the local bands playing lousy gigs to work their way up, the wedding singers, contestants, the ones who rent time in a recording studio to publish their own music and try to get it out there . . . All the way up to the artists, some well established, who have said, "fine, now I'm going to do things MY way," and set up their own independent labels or banded together with those of like mind.
We've got a great deal in common with the other creative arts and we can either watch and learn from them or we can repeat their learning curves on our way to figuring it out — or failing.
Linda,I'm not sure saying "they don't want to learn" is quite accurate. I think, for the most part, they lack the discernment to understand that they need to learn. Or, at least, that was the boat I was in.
Much like Jim's story, I thought I was "ready." I'd been to critique groups. Read books on writing. Got great feedback.
My novel was about to set the world on fire. I had nothing left to learn; I'd already learned it.
Just to make sure, though, I hired an editor. After all, that's what you "should" do even though it wasn't really necessary for me. I shelled out my $500 and expected her to make some minor comments here and there. I'd clean it up a bit and publish it on Amazon.
Good Lord but was I delusional. The draft I gave her was the worst dreck imaginable.
I was one of those people I complain about, and I thank God that I took that final step of hiring an editor so that I didn't embarrass myself thoroughly in the public forum of Amazon.
Keep in mind that, leading up to my sending my MS to the editor, I derided all those other poor SPA's who put out crap novels.
I'm thankful for my experience, but I don't know what the solution is for others. Just today, I read a post on Goodreads from an SPA seeking reviews. I took a look at her book's sample on Amazon and didn't make it past a few paragraphs. Simply awful.
I read her profile. I really think that she thinks she's put in the effort. She seemed really sincere about the fact that she worked really hard at developing her craft. But she doesn't know what she doesn't know.
Brian
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble. It's what we know that ain't so."**Will Rogers (Humorist) 1879 - 1935
Linda wrote: "The problem with that analogy, Renee, is that the visual arts have always had multiple markets, so that the buyer has at least some idea what they're looking at. Juried craft show, exclusive galle..."Perfect analogy Linda. As a visual artist I've participated in many juried shows.
Also - I must add : The artist is never the best judge of their own work. When I first started showing paintings I couldn't understand why I didn't get accepted into every show I applied to.
When I got over my butthurt and was able to be objective, I could see that my framing, stretching, color choices... or whatever left something to be desired, and I worked to improve my presentation.
That said, sometimes there's nepotism or prejudice involved in judging and that's what I like to call "life in the big city". Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as an indie writer all you can do is:
Put out the best content you're capable of.
Heed the criticism that keeps recurring or comes from someone you respect.
Persevere. Work work work work to improve. There is no perfect.
Do that, and with a little luck, your audience will find you :)
Linda,I guess my thought is that I can only control what I do. To try to get everyone else to do what I think is best seems like a recipe for an awful lot of frustration.
Does the publishing scene really need to be altered?
I still hold out some hope that the cream will rise to the top. Granted that I'm an optimist, but how much do the tons of really poorly written books out there truly hurt my chances? Don't most of them sell like 5 copies to friends and family and then fade to complete oblivion?
I find most of my books from Amazon's recommendations for me and their top sellers list. Some of those are pretty awful, but they shine in comparison to the truly bad stuff most SPAs are linking to on these forums. Those really bad ones aren't ever going to pop up on most reader's radar.
All that those books really do is clog up the inboxes of those brave book bloggers who are open to SPAs, and I'm just not that convinced that those blogs would do a whole heckava lot to sell my book.
Wouldn't it be great if Amazon (or any other e-book purveyor) had a juried "collection"? It would give indies something to shoot for, and assure readers of some degree of quality control.Get on that Bezos!
Wow! What an education! Still sitting on the newbie fence here at Goodreads. Went back and read this thread from the beginning to end and again, wow, what an education. I've stepped into this Indie Author arena late in the game. However, my skill as a writer in Corporate America earned me some pretty decent money. I'm now retired.
When I first got my Kindle I downloaded many books and "tried" to read them. I was horrified at the lack of understanding of the very basic rules of language and how to use it in the written word. I can count on one hand the number of "good reads" I was able to find and I read across many genres. I gave up downloading Indie Authors even though I am now one myself. I became an Indie Author because I now knew the three novels sitting in my Junk Folder had the potential to surpass any free or deeply discounted download.
The following statements are not intended as a brag but is given as an example of real-time, happening-now experience of being a new Indie Author. I published my first novel in early September. My sales report tallies from Amazon/Kindle/B&N/Nook/self-sell combined are hovering at 501 units sold. I don't have many reviews on Amazon. I made sure I put out a quality product and had a marketing strategy then worked the plan. I didn't spend hours and hours of time on reader/writer forums with the exception of CreateSpace. Had I done that, I probably would have never entered the Indie Author arena.
To raise the perceived quality of works put out in the SP market, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to other writers. The product we present to the reading public must pass reasonable quality control standards (editing). Grandiose, over-inflated chest-thumping read-my-book-because-it's-the-best self-promo brings all of us down. Especially when the product being promoted is inferior or sub-standard. No one becomes a race-car driver overnight. And in spite what many think and believe, no one becomes a talented, skilled writer overnight. I love the SP venue for giving me an opportunity. I hate the SP venue because it's done great harm to the most basic necessity needed in all cultures and societies -- the written word.
GT,Fantastic post and congrats on your success!
I always love hearing true stories of the experiences of people who have been where I plan to go. (Care to share your marketing plan with us?)
You experience seems to support my hope: If you have a good enough product, you can get it noticed even with all the crap out there.
I get that Linda feels that others are bringing her down because of the stigma, but I just don't see that changing. Hasn't the publishing industry always been about trying to get your book noticed over the throngs that are being put forward? The only difference now is that the public gets to do the choosing instead of the people going through the slush piles.
Thanks for sharing!
Brian
Based off some of the comments so far, I sort of took something from it. I almost feel as though SP ebooks when published are automatically given the negative label and this label can only be shed if the author has proven that their work is solid and in fact good. How do they do this? well they don't, it's up to the readers to read the book for themselves and decide and the first couple reviews with reveal whether the book is in fact a negative dud or a legitimate book worth recommending and checking out.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Home by Christmas (other topics)Juror 1389: Dorsie Raines Renninger (other topics)
The Snowflake Effect: How the Self-Esteem Movement Ruined a Generation (other topics)
A Clockwork Orange (other topics)
Actually I didn't. Please see original message 165.
See where it clearly says CHRISTINE wrote; " You have a lot of demands...". That first message you wrote directly mentioned your demands. I never posted a comment mentioning DEMANDS until you replied to me. YOU brought up demands in OUR conversation.