Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
II. Publishing & Marketing Tips
>
Do self-published ebooks have a bad reputation?
Steph wrote: "Hi all,Do Goodreads readers and authors think that self-published ebooks have a bad reputation?
I'm sure most people have heard stories of poorly-formatted works full of bad grammar and spel..."
Presently, I'm reading a self-published book and I'm liking it. I have read books from big pub houses riddled with mistakes, bad grammar and lots of spelling mistakes. If the theme of the book moves me, I will read it when I can.
I agree with DJ. Not only because my book is riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes *blush* but because if the story moves me, I can overlook these. I recently read an Indie author's e-book called the Son of Man. The story was gripping. I can't tell you whether there were mistakes in it or not simply because I was so enthralled with the story itself. There will be nit-picky folks who will tear an e-book apart due to bad grammar or spelling and will miss the opportunity to truly be entertained. Not everyone with a story to tell can afford an editor nor are they all Lit majors. I say, give the books a chance based on what they have to say, not on how properly they said it.
One big advantage of eBooks is that most, if not all, let you view a sample before having to commit to buying the book. There are many books out there that have appalling spelling and grammar, but it quickly becomes very evident in the sample.Spelling can also be a bit of a problem with English vs. American, but this will depend on the writer and the potential audience.
With Word, and other similar writing packages, they have built in Spell and Grammar checking, which will probably sort out 95% of the errors, so really there shouldn't be any excuse. However, I do know that people turn off these checks, because there are too many red and green lines through their work.
Hmmm. Perhaps the writing is on the wall for them(?).
To attempt to answer the original question - does this give (any) eBook writers a bad reputation? - I suspect it does, but I've found that the short books tend to have more errors. I think that generally someone who has written in excess of 50,000 or 100,000 words will have taken the trouble to get most things right (Of course I might be wrong on this assumption).
I suggest that without resorting to professional help, a sensible course of action would be for a friend, or relative, to read your book and for the budding author to listen and act on what people say, before making it available to the world.Chris Bullock
Please don't forget that children and young adults develop their language skills primarily by reading. If they're reading books '...riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes...' they're going to find it very difficult to know how to write decent English. I was devouring books of all kinds (including those intended for adults) at a very early age - this reading proved invaluable in mastering English grammar at school and honing essay-writing skills.
I believe that authors have a responsibility to the language and their readers to publish the best book possible - whether in print or e-book form. Call me old-fashioned...
i certainly read self-published books, but sometimes I do get frustrated with bad grammar, spelling, fact-checking etc.. What I think is important though is that authors learn from their mistakes and make better on the next one
Having seen almost as many bad eBook conversions from major pub houses as I have from indies, I'd say no.In fact, the idea of self-pub'ing as having a bad rep is, I think, just about dead. As Chris notes, it's fairly evident from the sample pages whether the author knows what they're doing.
As a self-pubbed author, I've heard about that reputation-- yep. So my goal was to have a book as professionally-polished as it could possibly be before I ever sent it out into the world. I also had it reviewed by two different editors to catch anything I missed.
I know that I can't do anything about the quality of other folks' books out there. What I can control is my own.
I'm hoping that if people begin reading it they'll see that it's not simply a "self-pubbed book" but its own entity with its own merits-- and hopefully, they'll have some fun with it.
Bad grammar etc. is a big turn-off for me too, I admit. A badly-converted ebook is another issue, as even if you have put the time and effort into making it look good, it feels like you have to take it on trust as to what your work will look like on various devices (unless you happen to own every single ereader going!).I've just noticed there's a similar thread on here which I missed when debating whether to start this one (Independent authors - the state of the stigma). I'm thinking more about the 'product' - the ebook itself - than the author, but much of the sentiment is the same.
Gus wrote: "I agree with DJ. Not only because my book is riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes *blush* but because if the story moves me, I can overlook these. I recently read an Indie author's e-book..."Thanks for not being a reader snob, Gus!
Like you, I read to be entertained and not to be the editor police. Hiring a professional editor is costly and, like you mentioned, not every author can afford to hire an editor.
I've read bestsellers, magazines, text books, manuals, etc., that were not error free but they don't receive the harsh judgement that self-published books receive. Why?
Nell, I agree. Indie authors should be taking great care in the editing of their books, but not only in the editing. They need to study the craft of writing, also. Things like plot, repetition, POV, sentence structure matter as much as entertainment value. When indies overlook it as, "if it's fun it's good enough" they devalue all of us trying to do things right, as well as devaluing the full point of literature. I just posted about that at my indie blog, actually:475 hours, or Authors Know Thy Craft
I've found many rivetting self-pubbed Kindle books. I've never been dissapointed because I read the samples first. If the sample is bad, and it often is, I try another one.
The great think about Kindle, apart from the samples, is that if you hate the book you can get a refund.
The great think about Kindle, apart from the samples, is that if you hate the book you can get a refund.
I always read samples, as well. Authors should have them on blogs or websites.The refund leaves the door wide open for people to read and say they hate it just for the refund, doesn't it? Lousy deal for authors.
Vanessagrace wrote: I've read bestsellers, magazines, text books, manuals, etc., that were not error free but they don't receive the harsh judgement that self-published books receive. Why? Possibly because of the sheer number of errors in some self-published books. I've never seen more than a few (three, four at the very most) errors in commercially published books. I find the mistake-ridden ones saddening, as some Indie books are surprising and original and would be page-turners otherwise.
LK, you're right. There are many brilliant writers' sites where work can be uploaded and critiques given and received - it need not be expensive to turn out a respectable product if an author is willing to put in the time and effort.
The refund system seems odd - I was wondering if Amazon had a programme set up to spot buyers who request too many - after all, the preview is long enough to give a pretty good indication of the content.
I have seen plenty of self-published books with mistakes. The key to avoiding that is to edit and re-edit. I had my book proofread twice by multiple readers, one of whom is a newspaper editor. I think if authors truly want their work to have an impact, they need to take pride in it. Unfortunately, not all of them do so.
LK wrote: "Nell, I agree. Indie authors should be taking great care in the editing of their books, but not only in the editing. They need to study the craft of writing, also. Things like plot, repetition, POV..."I like this and the figures give some interesting reading. The worry I have is that the only people that will read it and take note are probably the ones that understand and follow the guidlines anyway - or am I just being cynical?
Chris, I think you may be right, but I hope not.I definitely agree with LK about the craft of writing, but a tiny worm is whispering in my ear that some amazingly original and groundbreaking work has been created by unknowns who knew nothing of it. These are rare events though.
Edited to add that I'm thinking of the conventions of plot, POV, sentence structure etc. rather than accidental errors.
Gus wrote: "I agree with DJ. Not only because my book is riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes *blush* but because if the story moves me, I can overlook these...There will be nit-picky folks who will tear an e-book apart due to bad grammar or spelling and will miss the opportunity to truly be entertained.."Gus, if your own book contained many spelling and grammar errors, you are probably insufficiently literate to spot the errors in others. Authors, like carpenters, masons, or doctors, should be familiar with and competent in the use of their tools. Ignorance is not an excuse for shoddy work by professionals (and if you are selling your work, you are a self-proclaimed professional.)
Chris, you may be right, but I can't help putting the thought out there after I've seen so much evidence of people who just decide to write a book and sit down and do that and throw it out there. It's obvious. I read one recently where the first half was all a bunch of interior monologue, repetitive, and whiny when it was from a hero (in a romance) who is supposed to be strong and stalwart. He didn't even meet the heroine until halfway through. And even then he was whiny and I couldn't convince myself why she bothered with him. That's what I mean. If you market as romance, you need to follow the basics of it. You need to know what defines romance as a genre.
Nell, yes I think there are rare writers who can craft a beautiful story without studying how it's "supposed" to be done, but most can't. The story can be beautiful still, but in general, it will show that you don't understand the craft. Little things like head-hopping can throw an otherwise beautiful story. I believe in breaking rules. But I do think you should know them first!
Grammar edits and typos matter much less to me than seeing an obvious lack of craft.
What's more likely to put me off a book is cliched stereotyped characters and overly romantasied settings. If a writer wants to engage me then give me something that's going to inspire me, grip me and make me want to turn the page. I don't care if there's a few errors, I probably won't notice them. I will, however throw a book against the wall if the writing is dull and predictable.
Stuart wrote: "What's more likely to put me off a book is cliched stereotyped characters and overly romantasied settings. If a writer wants to engage me then give me something that's going to inspire me, grip me..."I agree. Those are major downfalls in a lot of self-published books. And Mary Sue's -- that's another bad one that frequently shows up.
Nell wrote: "Please don't forget that children and young adults develop their language skills primarily by reading. If they're reading books '...riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes...' they're going ..."I agree, Nell. You've said this very well.
Stuart wrote: "What's more likely to put me off a book is cliched stereotyped characters and overly romantasied settings. If a writer wants to engage me then give me something that's going to inspire me, grip me..."Stuart, when I find a book to be so predictable/pedantic that I can't stick with it for more than one chapter, I know that hundreds,thousands, perhaps millions of other readers will find that same book deeply engaging/riveting. Two examples: "Da Vinci Code" and "The Bridges of Madison County". Clint Eastwood did make a great film out of a badly written novel; but the film, "Da Vinci Code" failed miserably. The more responses I read in these Goodreads forums, the more I realize the vast differences that exist between our perspectives. Subjectivity rules, when it comes to judging any art form, apparently.
Marcia wrote: The more responses I read in these Goodreads forums, the more I realize the vast differences that exist between our perspectives. Subjectivity rules, when it comes to judging any art form, apparently.Yes, it's amazing to look through the ratings for a single book and see any number of stars from one to five and reviews that cover the whole gamut of feelings.
The thing that concerns me about language though, is the thought that in the future there'll be no designated spelling for words or rules for grammar, or that if there are, these won't be considered important. New books might all eventually be published digitally, and with teachers themselves caring less about English (as it seems even now), we could end up with books written like text messages. The words 'thin', 'edge' and 'wedge' spring to mind.
Gus wrote: "I agree with DJ. Not only because my book is riddled with bad grammar and spelling mistakes *blush* but because if the story moves me, I can overlook these. I recently read an Indie author's e-book..."I agree with Gus. It's more of the plot that matters. That being said, I do hate grammar errors, especially if its extremely obvious. It makes me feel that the author didn't check through his/her work at all, because some mistakes are really glaring ones. As for spelling, I don't really notice, because I don't read word by word, I scan across the words and pick out the important ones to understand the sentence. I'm sorry, I don't really know how to explain it!
If the plot isn't good, no matter how good the grammar and all is, I won't like the book. If the grammar is bad but the plot is amazing, it's fine with me. It's just that it may not be one of my favorites if I spot the error and it takes me away from the appreciation of the plot.
Nell wrote: "Marcia wrote: The more responses I read in these Goodreads forums, the more I realize the vast differences that exist between our perspectives. Subjectivity rules, when it comes to judging any art ..."Nell, I hate to break it to you, but this has been the case for decades. There are no "designated spellings." There are multiple spellings within the English language depending upon the country you live in (in Canada, for example,we mix U.S. and British spellings).
It's one reason I put "This edition uses U.S. spellings of common words" on my copyright pages.
I've been in newspapers for years, and each paper has its own "style" guide to determine which spellings to use. So it's not even uniform within individual nations, which is why some school districts in California allow, for example, spelling derived from ebonic pronunciation.
So there's no uniformity to it, never has been.
With respect to grammar, I'd agree that trying to keep it as uniformly presentable is a good thing, for literacy's sake. At the same time, rules were meant to be broken when it comes to improved turn of phrase.
Marcia Quinn wrote: "Stuart wrote: "What's more likely to put me off a book is cliched stereotyped characters and overly romantasied settings. If a writer wants to engage me then give me something that's going to insp..."Always. Art is subjective. There is no baseline.
Popularity is a measurement. So they're two very different things.
But measurements are easier to disassemble in order to see what work, which is where the cultural divide comes in, because 'pop' becomes about maximizing the number of people who consume it.
I find the intersection of the two exceedingly rare but always awe-inspiring, particularly with respect to music, where social engagement and response has made it easier to determine what will be popular (simple rhythmic pattern recognition) but you still get lots of variety.
Nell wrote: "Marcia wrote: The more responses I read in these Goodreads forums, the more I realize the vast differences that exist between our perspectives. Subjectivity rules, when it comes to judging any art ..."It will be interesting to see how language becomes altered by the YA self publishing revolution. While it's a wonderful thing to see young women using their imaginations to craft stories, the themes and genres are apparently, highly contagious.
The rules of grammar shift constantly. I recently read posts from writers who prefer to use the Oxford comma, although that was forbidden long ago, by teachers of English Literature.
Email and texting divides the generations; between those who grew up writing letters sent via snail mail, and those who have not learned to mail a thank you note with a stamp on it, after receiving a wedding gift (choosing instead to send out a generic group email saying, "Thanks, everyone!")
Webinars offered by "writing experts" are often delivered by voices dominated by "Valley Girl" accents. How did that virus spread throughout the U.S.? My guess, an entire generation of young women watched Hollywood films with young heroines who modeled that form of speech. My niece holds a master's degree and yet, speaks Valley Girl. Pauses are disallowed; replaced by the two constantly repeated interjections, "like" and "you know". Will she talk to her clients in that way when she completes her internship and becomes a clinical psychologist?
LH wrote: Nell, I hate to break it to you, but this has been the case for decades. There are no "designated spellings." There are multiple spellings within the English language depending upon the country you live in (in Canada, for example,we mix U.S. and British spellings).You know what I'm saying LH, so please don't patronize me. International differences, regional dialects, changes in language that come to be adopted as popular usage, jive etc. etc., are fine - anything intentional is fine and not what I'm talking about. I shouldn't have to make a list.
I have to agree with what most folks are saying. I've seen bad books from big publishers, small publishers and indies. I've seen great books from all three sources as well.Lately, I've strayed deeply into indie territory because I like the freshness of the stories and because so often, the big publishers are simply not putting out the stories I love to read. :)
I'm just glad to have a lot of choices, now. It's wonderful.
When I purchased a new dictionary a few years ago, I chose the very thick volume, The New Oxford American Dictionary, and was surprised to find definitions that legitimize the use of very recently coined words that are fully incorporated into American slang. Proof positive that cultural shifts change the way language is used.
Nell wrote: "LH wrote: Nell, I hate to break it to you, but this has been the case for decades. There are no "designated spellings." There are multiple spellings within the English language depending upon the c..."Nell, I've noticed a startling increase in the number of respondents in these forums who intentionally use an ill-mannered, patronizing tone in their comments.
What is the intention behind "I hate to break it to you," other than sarcasm? Is it a compulsion to derail conversation, or an attempt to establish power/authority through bullying? Any thoughts?
Nell wrote: "...The thing that concerns me about language though, is the thought that in the future there'll be no designated spelling for words or rules for grammar, or that if there are, these won't be considered important..."I'm glad my little thread has generated a debate. I do believe book publishers have a duty as custodians of language - a responsibility that therefore falls to self-published authors too. As for slang or other 'unconventional' language, I think it is best left to speech or a first-person narrative (or you could invent your own, as in A Clockwork Orange). I find slang it tricky to use well, plus contemporary slang will soon make a work seem very dated!
I don't know, Marcia. I think my POV was expressed clearly enough, but I find this sort of response stressful and not worth the effort of more than a brief reply to ensure that others are not misled by it. I'll probably leave the discussion at that now and let it take its own direction.
Thanks for this thread. As an "indie author," I find it frustrating that so many others can't or won't edit their books. I know I can't do it up to a professional standard, so I ask my wife (who would be an editor if not for the fact that being a lawyer pays more) to do it.I don't think it's "snobbishness" to want books to be properly written; some people literally can't enjoy a good plot if their internal editors are at work the whole time. I don't want to exclude those people as potential readers.
I feel with those who hate dullness and cliches far more than they can hate errors. I do worry about oversights; they mean the writer hasn't spent enough time with the work, but most of the trad-published haven't spent enough time either, even if an editor has cleaned them up. It is the case that punctuation habits, for instance, have differed from century to century, and I learnt the craft from old books... I can report that early on, I was pretty literate but I didn't know how to punctuate - in this day and age. And then I'm a medievalist: they spelt a word three ways on a page. These things don't bother me. I've met a few indies who like to make up their grammar, and to me, that's the artistic instinct and I back their right to do so, whatever I think of the results.
Indie is more exploratory. It's easy to trad publish a dull book without originality or art. Publishers encourage genre clones, don't they? I'll take indie with the highs and lows.
Being British, but having grown up with American friends, and having studied American literature, I find myself mid-Atlantic, which is not so good. I know I should be one or the other. It's got to the point where I read both so much it rarely registers, with the one exception of the use of 'ou' over 'o'; I don't think I'll ever manage to write 'humor' :)Addressing the original question, then yes, I do think the stigma still exists. It may not be as bad as it was, but it remains.
Once you get beyond the creative aspect of writing and move on to delivery of product to market then that is a different discipline. Taking the creative hat off and putting the editing cap on is not easy. The advice I have received is to put the book down for at least a month and come back to it with a reader's eye, not a writer's. We can all read other people's work and spot errors more easily than our own.
I also agree that if we are, as Indies, going to be in the same market as the trad publisher then we need to work by the same standards for content. Yes, the Kindle conversion process does have an issue with the first indent of the first paragraph of a chapter, but you can fix it so it goes away. Ragged right is common, and some profess to preferring it, but it's not standard. Printed copy, and I believe eBooks, should be fully justified.
It's these points of detail that I made mistakes with, and many others do. If we want to compete, we must strive for perfection.
(And, as an aside to Steph, couldn't agree more about astrophysicists.)
I often hear from authors, the old cry, "but I can't afford professional editing. It's too expensive." This does not wash. We authors expect our readers to pay out their money for our books. We owe it to those readers to invest some of our own to make it worth their while. It's like any other business; you have to pay out before you can expect to reap rewards.
Before putting our books on the market, we should have them professionally ASSESSED again and again until the assessor tells us the script is ready to face a copy-editor. It costs. So does the copy-editing. To cut down on the number of times you will need to have your work assessed, you can get assistance from an authors' critiquing group. If there are none near you, there are plenty of online versions. "Authonomy" springs to mind.
Every writer needs critiquing, assessment and editing all the way through the long process of writing and if it is a book that means everything to you, you will go short of food if necessary, to do the best for your book. And if the book does not mean everything to you, why bother writing it? There are plenty of easier ways to earn money.
My editor is a writer himself. He gets his own work edited by another editor even though he himself has years of experience working for a traditional publisher.
I consider myself a stickler for grammar and spelling and have decades of practice seeking out errors in kids' work during my teaching years, but errors still turn up that I have not noticed until the editor points them out. I would never dream off turning off spellcheck or grammar check. It's our first line of defence.
I'd like to see a system where we can display some kind of professionally generated sticker on our work to show it has "passed" a certain strict literary standard.
There could be a yellow sticker for spelling and grammar, a blue sticker for literary quality and a green sticker for level of emotional response the book generates. Perhaps others for quality of information in non-fiction, a sticker for research in both fiction and non-fiction. An illustration sticker for illustrated books etc.
The issue with stickers based on whether something has literary quality or emotional response is that these are subjective characteristics. Spelling and grammar are mechanical. Emotional response is a shakey term solely based on the response of the reader, which widely varies depending on who is reading. Emotional response should not be distilled down to a system like that.
Self-published books are naturally not going to be as good as published authors on a whole. There just isn't the same quality control...and that's okay. In exchange the best indie books tend to have a quality of experimentation that published works don't have. Publishing houses tend to play it safe. I find a lot of published work to be trash, anyway, just like self-published work.
As far as editing, I think every book should be edited, and professional editors are a great boon. However, they ARE expensive. When you work a minimum wage job and pay college tuition on top of everything else you can't afford anything. Self-published authors do not have the benefit of financial backing or publishers. They are doing it all on their own. So, yes, professional editors are a great boon. A book can mean everything to a person while they still need to pursue PRACTICAL matters like getting through college.
Self-published books are naturally not going to be as good as published authors on a whole. There just isn't the same quality control...and that's okay. In exchange the best indie books tend to have a quality of experimentation that published works don't have. Publishing houses tend to play it safe. I find a lot of published work to be trash, anyway, just like self-published work.
As far as editing, I think every book should be edited, and professional editors are a great boon. However, they ARE expensive. When you work a minimum wage job and pay college tuition on top of everything else you can't afford anything. Self-published authors do not have the benefit of financial backing or publishers. They are doing it all on their own. So, yes, professional editors are a great boon. A book can mean everything to a person while they still need to pursue PRACTICAL matters like getting through college.
I don't think people view it like they used to, especially since ebooks are taking off.
Unfortunately, I do believe self-pubbed books are getting a bad rap in many cases. All the self-pubbed books I have on my tbr pile went through the same process I have for my trade published books. And yes, I suppose I am a snob in that I do look for things like care with formatting, essentials like a grasp of basic spelling and grammar, a neat cover. On Amazon, you have the ability to look inside and usually read the first chapter.
When I do so, my criteria are pretty basic. No obvious spelling problems (rediculous? really?), no botched formatting (sometimes not under the author's control but usually it is), and then content - how quickly they suck me in. Quite often, based on those things, I make the decision to buy. And based on those things, I can also pretty much spot a self-published book because I simply do not buy that there are that many Big Six books out there with shoddy editing. If they do, they are a rarity. I've dismissed far more self-published books based on poor content than I have trades.
All that said, when I find a wonderful self-pubbed book, I snarf up everything else by that author, too, because they've really sold me on their ability to tell a story and I'm more willing to tell my friends about it than I do about trade published books I like.
I had my first book "professionally published" and the editing was less than stellar, they rushed me into publishing a book (deadlines and fines for not being done on time) - so I wanted until the titled expired, then took matters into my own hands. I not only have a very good editor, I also have a top notch proof reader and trusted beta readers. I only publish 1 -2 books a year and I give each the full attention it deserves - there are some issues changing docs from one format to another, but a thorough read through solves that.
I have characters that speak with an exaggerated drawl and intentionally misspell words to catch their speaking pattern, but I make sure the narrative is clean an do my best to ensure it is as well edited as any book - traditional or independent being released.
To me traditional or indie doesn't matter - if the author has a good story to tell I'll buy it - and to boingboing - I have seen "traditional" books that were poorly edited or formatted
Gary wrote: I have seen "traditional" books that were poorly edited or formattedDo you have publisher names? I'd be curious to know who they were published by.
*shrug* I've still seen far more self-published books poor formatted and edited than I have trade.
Marcia wrote: "Nell wrote: "LH wrote: Nell, I hate to break it to you, but this has been the case for decades. There are no "designated spellings." There are multiple spellings within the English language dependi..."Wasn't intended that way. There are major differences in spelling. These aren't small things. The U.S., for example, spells many words without a 'U' that ever other English-speaking nation DOES include a 'u' in: colour, favour, splendour. To an American reader, that looks like a significant typo.
Did it occur to either of you that "I hate to break it to you" literally meant "It's unfortunate but", rather than reading tone into something.
Cripes.
Hi all, Do Goodreads readers and authors think that self-published ebooks have a bad reputation?
Most definitely. And as you allude to, poorly edited works full grammatical errors is one of the main reasons why. For me also, some of the hissyfits and unprofessional behaviour from some self-published authors ranting at reviewers/readers who did not like their work, have not helped the cause.
No doubt, a lack of editing and proof-reading skills will not help any aspiring author. But are those who push out poorly-presented novels spoiling it for the majority?
In my experience, I would say yes. Obviously I haven't read every self-pubbed book in the world, but I find that there is a major difference in quality between the authors who have been traditionally pubbed, and trying out self-pubbing, and the authors who have turned to SPing just so that they can see their book up in lights as it were, because they've been rejected by every traditional publisher they've subbed to.
If so, what can be done to convince potential readers not to tar all self-published ebooks with the same brush?
Reduce the number of books that are error strewn. Increase the quality of editing, heck perhaps even have some kind of accreditation system where the reader knows that if a self-pubbed book has a seal on it that denotes quality editing, then the worst they can expect is to not like the actual story. I hasten to add that the seal of approval would not necessarily be given by a review site. I'm thinking something like The Self-Publishing Standards Authority. I just totally made that up, but you get my point.
yeah there are many bad book out there, an easy and not exactly way would be to look at the cover. someone who tries to make a quality product also tries to have a nice cover. that isn't always the case, but a good starting point. reading afterwards the sample should make the rest.
I've been banging on about this for years, there is so much out there now, which can only be described as unedited dross, it is getting difficult to spot the good stuff!.Anyone who has read my first effort from 2003 will think I've got a b....y cheek saying this. I did everything wrong! I was so impatient to get it 'out there,' I didn't listen to the company who helped me publish.
Result, one of the most gripping, true, hostage rescue stories you are likely to come across, spoilt by typos and basic errors. Available as print on demand and ebook, intended as a tribute to the bravest little lady I have met, or heard of for that matter.
I have learnt the error of my ways. The best indies, be it print on demand or ebook format are now the best produced and presented books available and setting the standard. It is the main stream were standards are slipping, being published by a main stream is not a guarentee of quality, as they are cutting costs to stay in business, editing and design are bearing the brunt.
Good editors are rarer than hens teeth.
Keep fighting the fight, if you have a good story, do it right, there is enough regurgitated verbage out in the mainstream, as an author, and an indipendant one, I make this plea to all others out there, don't rush into print/ebook, do it right, don't scrimp on quality.
All the best Paul Rix [oldgeezer]
P.S. I'm an author, not an editor/proof reader, so please excuse any typos/spelling errors in this missive.
Interesting discussion. I'm aware of the differences in spelling between different English speaking countries, but never thought of placing a note re US spelling on my books...not a bad idea. Personally, I hate it when the grammar and spelling are of poor quality. It ruins the story for me, even a potentially good story. The samples help sort that out.
I think there is still a stigma towards self-publishing. I don't think there should be, but there is. Self-publishing shouldn't really matter, but the problem is that anyone can self-publish. So there is a lot of books and some aren't good for readers, some are poorly edited, some just don't make sense. But the good ones get the same treatment. This affects the good self-published books that aren't marketed well. I mean you can take a shitty product and, to a certain degree, early innovators will pick it up before trashing it in the reviews sections. You can take a great book and put it in the self-published world and not market it with no sales.
The self-publishing world still needs some kind of gatekeeper in order to function properly, or better for that matter. That was originally what traditional publishers did, but they failed for many great authors. I mean Harry Potter was rejected many times!
I wrote a post about this if you feel like commenting. I wrote a post about this if you feel like commenting.
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)
Do Goodreads readers and authors think that self-published ebooks have a bad reputation?
I'm sure most people have heard stories of poorly-formatted works full of bad grammar and spelling mistakes. No doubt, a lack of editing and proof-reading skills will not help any aspiring author. But are those who push out poorly-presented novels spoiling it for the majority?
If so, what can be done to convince potential readers not to tar all self-published ebooks with the same brush?
I should add that this post was prompted by an advert from a company who claimed that a review by one of their highly-rated (and expensive) reviewers would reverse this trend by adding a 'seal of approval' to an author's work. I wasn't convinced...