Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Why don't more people read Self-published authors?
I tend to avoid 'em like the plague. Nah, I will read them occasionally. Frankly, if they can't get published, I tend to think it says something about the quality of their writing. I do not even think of self-published authors as the real thing.
Chuck,What about small press publishers? Do you stick with the major ones only?
The problem with self-published is risking your money and maybe getting a dud, possibly even a high probability of getting a dud. One way round this is a ScribD premium account for $8.99 per month, you can borrow as much as you like each month and Smashwords authors are distributed there so there is no a lot of indie authors to go with their traditional published fare. You can try it on a one month trial or if you click on a link from a current user you get two months free. You also get a month free every time you get someone else to join.
Chuck wrote: "I tend to avoid 'em like the plague. Nah, I will read them occasionally. Frankly, if they can't get published, I tend to think it says something about the quality of their writing. I do not even th..."I thought that until a few months ago, but the situation has changed in the last few years and many are choosing indie publishing because the contracts are so poor in publishing or the publishers are only interested in genres that sold well three years ago. And all readers should want writers to write what is in their heart, not what an agent tells them will sell, as that generally makes for a better finished product.
The problem is finding out which indie authors are talented and choosing not be a publisher's minion and then give 15% of their paltry earnings to their agent, and which are publishing because they heard that someone got rich indie publishing and they may as well game the system.
Its a Catch-22 situation, unless more people read and review indie books to sift the good from the bad, then it is a gamble buying. In the meantime you can use a library service or check if the author offers a big download sample on Smashwords (or has a decent freebie that suggests their other books might be worth paying for).
Judy wrote: "Chuck,What about small press publishers? Do you stick with the major ones only?"
Really, I'm not sure. A lot of times I choose a book based on literary awards or the best sellers lists. But I certainly don't go looking for indie authors. When I hear the term I'm underwhelmed to say the least. You might take a look at my 2013 folder to see what I've been doing. I think I've branched out a bit since coming to GR. But you know if I see a book has 20 reviews I'm probably going to pass on it thinking they're all from family and friends.
Chuck wrote: "I tend to avoid 'em like the plague. Nah, I will read them occasionally. Frankly, if they can't get published, I tend to think it says something about the quality of their writing. I do not even th..."Partly true only, IMHO. I bet some SPA go the self-pub road after many, many rejections, of course, but there are others who actually don't want to go the traditional road for starters, for various reasons that aren't necessarily bogus. I'll freely admit I'm tempted to directly self-pub just because I also want to do my own book layout and design my own cover—something no publishing house will let me do (if you know one, though, please tell me its name).
(Also, I don't agree with the "if your novel's good, a traditional publisher will always publish it" argument. I've stopped counting the so-called best-sellers that I keep throwing on my 1* pile—and nobody will manage to convince me that I'm a dumb person who can't understand the "depth and meaning of those books". My conclusion being that publishers go with what sells, yet "what sells" =/= "always good", which debunks the argument for me.)
Mercia wrote: "And all readers should want writers to write what is in their heart, not what an agent tells them will sell, as that generally makes for a better finished product."Wasn't there someone in this group, a few months ago, who mentioned her agent asking she add romance to her SF story, and peg it as YA, because her hero was "only 17"? (I think the person was a "she". I may be mistaken, though.)
Judy wrote: "Chuck,What about small press publishers? Do you stick with the major ones only?"
I'm not Chuck, but I regularly read small press publishers. One of my favorite publishers right now is a small press, because they offer me fantastic stories that are done well. Some small press publishers are not very well managed and so the work they put out is awful, but as a general rule I think they do a good job.
Linda wrote: "If you (generic you, not specific) want to get out there, as an author, and admit that you're not going to give bad reviews or ratings even on unadulterated manure because you don't want to get bad reviews in return or because you hope other authors will return the kindness by not posting an honest report on your own unadulterated manure, then please at least be honest about it. Don't dress up your review swaps in claims of honesty when you know damn good and well you only rated a 2.5-star book 4+ because you hoped to get the same kindness from the author you swapped with."To some extent I can understand when authors do not want to give a bad rating because of concern about retaliatory reviews. (I don't expect that everyone has your fearlessness, Linda.) But I think authors giving 5 star glowing reviews to wretched books are doing great damage to their professional reputations. When I see a review like that of an objectively awful book, I immediately cross the author/reviewer off my list of people whose books I would consider reading. I'm sure other readers feel the same way.
I can't understand why writers would want to associate their names with bad writing. It makes them seem like they have no idea what good writing is (so why would I read theirs?) or as if their opinions are for sale. A review written in retaliation for a carefully considered and knowledgeable opinion wouldn't be nearly as harmful. It might even be a good thing.
That does assume that the buyer is going to click around and get a broad view of the whole thing. Most buyers are not going to do that; it's an impulse purchase.
Brenda wrote: "That does assume that the buyer is going to click around and get a broad view of the whole thing. Most buyers are not going to do that; it's an impulse purchase."That's probably true, but if a book is awful and the buyers go back to look at the review page, they may well note the names of those whose worthless reviews helped waste the reader's time and money. It just seems like a bad idea to give those kinds of reviews, certainly for ethical reasons, but also for reasons of self-interest.
Linda wrote: "@Sarah -- Oh, I understand quite perfectly that many authors are afraid. And yes, I'm the weird fruitcake in the bunch who isn't. ;-)I just think they should be honest about it, especially honest with themselves."
I completely agree. It's a question of professional integrity.
I do think that when an author goes batshit about reviews, it puts buyers off. Do you want to spend time with a person like that? Not me.
Brenda wrote: "I do think that when an author goes batshit about reviews, it puts buyers off. Do you want to spend time with a person like that? Not me."I've heard there's a list somewhere of badly behaving authors. Anyone ever hear of this?
Jen wrote: "I've heard there's a list somewhere of badly behaving authors. Anyone ever hear of this?"I haven't heard of one, but I do have a running list in my brain that already has four writers just from the past couple weeks here on GR.
I believe it's prudent to pick and choose your battles. When authors pop up, it should be evident fairly quick if they're level-headed and willing to accept criticism or if they're one small rattle from having a massive meltdown. A few months back, I saw a woman post about the evils of ARC and blog reviewers that never got back to her. She had a sizable rant going. I looked up her books out of morbid curiousity (I'm a horror author/fan, everything is morbid). Her books had no editing, no formatting, absolutely horrible grammar and punctuation, and covers that were so bare minimum, they might as well have not had covers. She even had a break in one book's description that was literally her begging for someone to make it a movie. Yeah, that's a car bomb just waiting for someone to brush against it.
I am looking for people opinion on something. I currently write young adult fantasy books about vampires and demons as Dave Rudden. I am about to start a children's book series. I am wondering if I should write the children's books under a different name to keep the two separate or does it matter?
Linda wrote: "And I don't like my swimming pool polluted with untreated sewage dumped there by ignorant assholes whose writing is so bad no one would ever read it anyway. I just want to keep the pool water reasonably clean so everyone can enjoy it."I think you should stop holding back and tell us how you really feel!
:)
Chuck wrote: "Frankly, if they can't get published, I tend to think it says something about the quality of their writing."I thought the same thing, until I viewed a book contract from a major publisher. I don't know the last time you've seen the sort of boilerplate book contracts offered to unknown authors, but the terms were horrible and the advance was dismal. On top of that, I would have to work just as hard as I'm doing now, for a fraction of the money and no control whatsoever over my work.
So I went the self-publishing route. And I found that there are more authors who choose self-publishing after disappointing encounters with trade publishing. Others have gone hybrid, having some books trade published while self-publishing their 'less commercially viable' books. Or just the work they don't want to compromise in order to render it more palatable to a preconceived general audience the trade publisher caters to.
I'm currently working on a stand-alone novel as well as the fourth book in my series. If the stand-alone is finished, I might offer it to publishing houses to become a hybrid author myself, but I will retain full control over my series.
This response is not aimed at changing your opinion of self-publishers, but just to let you, and other readers, know that not all self-publishers are the same.
I am a self published author, wrote my first thriller back in Dec 2012.I SP-ed without ever approaching a single publisher or agent.
I got my book professionally reviewed and edited, paid for those services, got my cover done professionally, and SP-ed.
I was under no illusions about SP-ing. I did not and will never view it as a get-rich-quick scheme.
My book is a thriller and targets the same audience that reads the likes of the Jack Reacher series.
I have roughly 34 reviews on Amazon and 22 on Amazon UK. The average review on both sites is in excess of 4.
I do not have a single review by friends and family. In fact my friends do not even know that I have published a book
Of all those reviews, about 10% are from reviewers - i.e: those who got the book for free.
All the rest are from paying readers. I have put up a link on Pinterest (http://www.pinterest.com/patterson089...) to capture reviews on Twitter too.. those readers who have given me feedback on Twitter.
The point(s) of all this:
I wanted to write and get my story out. I did not see any value in making life more difficult for myself by going to agents/traditional publishers, getting rejected numerous times and jumping through hoops.
The market is the ultimate decision maker. From that POV, I am greatly encouraged by the reviews I have received.
There are 6 billion people in the world, of which about 1 billion will be readers. That's a big enough market to target without getting fussed about trad publishing readers only. There's ample room in that market for SP authors and books.I also don't see any value in picking up fights with readers. They have their preferences and are perfectly entitled to them.
My challenge is getting my book known to a wider audience. Maybe that challenge would have been lesser with a trad publisher... I have no idea.
Just because a trad published book has bazillion reviews, doesn't mean much.
Publishers send out zillions of ARCs and to readers and reviewers, and the way human nature works, when you receive something for free, you tend not to criticize it. So how's that different from SP authors bigging one another up via reviews?
I have never asked any SP author to big my book up but I can understand the psychology of it when it happens to others. A lot of times they are bigging up the book because they understand the effort that went in writing...even if the effort isn't to their or other's tastes.
A trad publishing book will have on average fewer glitches than a SP book. There's no denying that fact. The simple reason for that is it goes through more reviews by different people. A SP author funds everything himself, so the amount of reviews is constrained by the size of their wallet.
That said, there are as many good SP books out there as trad published books.
SP is growing and is affecting trad publishing very much the way iTunes impacted the trad music publishers.
Lynda wrote: "Jen wrote: "I've heard there's a list somewhere of badly behaving authors. Anyone ever hear of this?"I haven't heard of one, but I do have a running list in my brain that already has four writers..."
I don't read the threads here enough. I'll have to start paying more attention.
Between Anne Rice and her change.org petition to require that reviewers post under their real names, an author threatening on Kindleboards to sue a reviewer for "false statements" and the ongoing issues with STGRB and authors melting down over one-star ratings without reviews, one-star reviews (sometimes, even, four star reviews) and the like, I have to say, I've about had it.These are all of the different fronts in a war that is entitled "Operation: Shut The Fuck Up, Reader."
Honestly, I don't know what I am going to do. Blogging used to be fun. Hell, reading used to be fun. Then amazon broke publishing, fan fiction - intellectual theft - became the hot new thing in making a gazillion dollars, and grammar became optional.
I'm a reader. I've been a reader for the last 43 years. Being able to talk to other readers was an amazing thing for me - it's always been a solitary hobby that very few people in my real life really understood. Realizing that there was a whole world out there of other readers who are passionate about books in the same way I am was amazing. It literally changed my life.
Anyway, this is a rambling, self-indulgent post, but I'm pissed that authors have sort of ruined my hobby, which was also my passion. Not all of them, but enough of them that it has left a really bad taste in my mouth.
Moonlight Reader wrote: "Between Anne Rice and her change.org petition to require that reviewers post under their real names, an author threatening on Kindleboards to sue a reviewer for "false statements" and the ongoing i..."First, what is STGRB?
Second, I'm beginning to think a master list of offensive authors should be up somewhere, in a highly visible place, so unknowing readers do not stumble into a situation that shouldn't exist, but unfortunately does.
I, too, am a reader who loves to discuss books. I've yet to be punished for this hobby by an author, but I'm always aware of the possibility.
Dave wrote: "I am looking for people opinion on something. I currently write young adult fantasy books about vampires and demons as Dave Rudden. I am about to start a children's book series. I am wondering if ..."Dave, a pseudonym is useful if you don't want one set of readers to read the other books. If a reader threw your name into the search window, would you be OK with all your works kicking up? If not then an alternate name might be used. I have a friend who teaches 3rd grade in a relatively conservative school district. She wisely writers her YA dark fantasy (vampires and sex!) under a pseudonym. The stress, if one of her pupils' moms put her name into Google, is best avoided.
Jen wrote: "First, what is STGRB?..."I found this link to a site that discusses STGRB: http://stopthegrbullies.net/.
When I tried to click on the site itself, I was denied access. Not sure why.
[Edited because I keep posting this darned thing before I finish my thoughts. Oy.]
Linda wrote: "@Jen --Some of us had shelves specifically for authors who had behaved badly and whose books we did not want to read or promote. Those shelves were deleted in the 20 September housecleaning. Id..."
I use Hawaiian for shelves I don't want deleted. I'm well below the radar of the GR powers that be, though, and don't have to worry about that; I had them in the open before the GR crackdown and nothing happened.
I'm attempting to create a space for readers who want to read self published but are worried about quality. I have a few up so far. Not all I list will be perfect in editing, but all will be close and will have wonderful stories. I'm not paid for my services, so I don't list authors I don't think are worth reading. If you all have ideas about who should be added, my readig list is open. www.eliteindiereads.weebly.com
Linda wrote: "I think I'm going to set up a website for author-published books to avoid.........."Please do.
C.M.J. wrote: "Linda wrote: "I think I'm going to set up a website for author-published books to avoid.........."Please do."
I have started a site like that. :) I would appreciate feedback from readers.
H.M. wrote: "I'm attempting to create a space for readers who want to read self published but are worried about quality. I have a few up so far. Not all I list will be perfect in editing, but all will be close ..."This seems like a great idea! Since I joined GR I've read both wonderful and not so great works from Indie Authors. Some of my favourite authors at the moment are self published or Indie and I love discoving more.
C.M.J. wrote: "Jen wrote: "First, what is STGRB?..."I found this link to a site that discusses STGRB: http://stopthegrbullies.net/.
When I tried to click on the site itself, I was denied access. Not sure why.
..."
Thanks for the link. I checked it out, and did a little digging on the whole thing. Authors bashing their readers have too much time on their hands.
Reminds me a little of people who go on American Idol and get angry when the judges tell them they suck. If you don't want feedback, don't put yourself out there.
Linda wrote: "That site blocks just about everyone.It is, in fact, a site populated by butthurt authors who do little but whine about how they've been bullied and stalked and tormented and threatened by horrib..."
"Butthurt authors?" I freaking LOVE that!
Linda wrote: "@Jen --Some of us had shelves specifically for authors who had behaved badly and whose books we did not want to read or promote. Those shelves were deleted in the 20 September housecleaning. Id..."
Shelves are a reader's business, not the author's. I can't believe GR deleted them. Authors should be happy someone LOOKED at their work, not bitching because they didn't react "properly."
H.M. wrote: "I'm attempting to create a space for readers who want to read self published but are worried about quality. I have a few up so far. Not all I list will be perfect in editing, but all will be close ..."H.M., I'm doing the very same thing, here on GR. I have a group (The Source) that strives not only to promote the great books out there, but also give readers a safe place to discuss the work.
I'll have to check out your site. The more people who take the time and effort to do this really help the cause.
Isn't it ironic that a site that claims to "out" bullies is in fact doing the bullying?
H.M. wrote: "I'm attempting to create a space for readers who want to read self published but are worried about quality. I have a few up so far. Not all I list will be perfect in editing, but all will be close ..."How can I get a book considered? Does it have to be nominated by someone?
Linda wrote: "I think I'm going to set up a website for author-published books to avoid.........."That's a great idea, brave too. Check the legalities of what you can say and not say so you don't leave yourself open to a lawsuit. Preditors and Editors is constantly having to defend itself.
Charlotte wrote: "H.M. wrote: "I'm attempting to create a space for readers who want to read self published but are worried about quality. I have a few up so far. Not all I list will be perfect in editing, but all w..."I would love to hear some recommendations. I just finished my nomination read from last week. Feel free to post your favorite books: http://eliteindiereads.weebly.com/eir...
I really am doing this for the benefit of readers, and, selfishly, for my reading enjoyment.
The great SF writer Jerry Pournelle has an exclamation: Ye flipping gods, I have books to write!Who has time, to police their reviews and start flamewars with readers who don't adore me sufficiently? I don't. I am busy writing a book.
And, nobody says that an author has to read her reviews. If you are as delicately balanced as some, it is perfectly OK to not read them at all. It might even be a good marketing move, if the alternative is to go batshit and drive readers away.
Broadway actors will frequently announce that they don't read their reviews, because it affects their performance. It is OK for writers to do the same.
C.M.J. wrote: "Isn't it ironic that a site that claims to "out" bullies is in fact doing the bullying?"That's the way it works everywhere, in regards to nearly everything.
People who do that are clearly not doing anything else -- the amount of wordage it takes to have a really thoroughgoing flamewar would easily amount to a novella.I have books to write before I die. I do not have flames to flame.
Can anyone name any exclusively self-published authors that have made any serious money?
Chuck wrote: "Can anyone name any exclusively self-published authors that have made any serious money?"I know Amanda Hocking is now traditionally published, but from what I've read, she was making a damned good living before she was contracted.
Jen wrote: "H.M., I'm doing the very same thing, here on GR. I have a group (The Source) that strives not only to promote the great books out there, but also give readers a safe place to discuss the work."You might like to know that The Source is the name of a dodgy tabloid newspaper in Elizabeth George's latest novel (and my current read) Just One Evil Act.
Mercia wrote: "Jen wrote: "H.M., I'm doing the very same thing, here on GR. I have a group (The Source) that strives not only to promote the great books out there, but also give readers a safe place to discuss th..."Really? I kind of like that...
Chuck wrote: "Can anyone name any exclusively self-published authors that have made any serious money?"Yes, Chuck. This is from http://bookmarketingbuzz.com/2011/08/...
[H]ere’s a list of self-published ebook authors and their sales for one month:
Blake Crouch – 2500+
Nathan Lowell – 2500+
Beth Orsoff – 2500+
Sandra Edwards – 2500+
Vianka Van Bokkem - 2500+
Maria Hooley – 2500+
C.S. Marks – 2500+
Lee Goldberg – 2500+
Lexi Revellian – 4000+
Zoe Winters – 4000+
Aaron Patterson – 4000+
Bella Andre – 5000+
Imogen Rose – 5000+
Ellen Fisher – 5000+
Tina Folsom – 5000+
Terri Reid – 5000+
David Dalglish – 5000+
Scott Nicholson – 10,000+
J.A. Konrath 10,000+
Victorine Lieske – 10,000+
L.J. Sellers – 10,000+
Michael R. Sullivan – 10,000+
H.P. Mallory – 20,000+
Selena Kitt – 20,000+
Stephen Leather – 40,000+
Amanda Hocking – 100,000+
Jen wrote: "Second, I'm beginning to think a master list of offensive authors should be up somewhere, in a highly visible place"There was a Listopia list at one point, I believe it has been taken down now but I'm not sure. A lot of readers on GR had shelves to designate authors who behaved like asses, but GR has decided those are now against the rules. Some readers made comments in the review space to indicate why they had chosen to not read an author, that is also no longer allowed on GR. That's why I moved all my lists like that to Book Likes and Leafmark.
Stefani wrote: "Jen wrote: "Second, I'm beginning to think a master list of offensive authors should be up somewhere, in a highly visible place"There was a Listopia list at one point, I believe it has been taken down..."
That's ridiculous! I'll have to check out Book Likes and Leafmark.
Jen wrote: "Reminds me a little of people who go on American Idol and get angry when the judges tell them they suck. If you don't want feedback, don't put yourself out there. "I often think there are a lot of apt comparisons to American Idol with some self-published authors. I think there's no harm in anyone singing in the shower, but that doesn't mean they should take it to national TV. So many of the people in the early rounds of that show seem to have no idea of their actual ability (or lack thereof).
Likewise with self-publishing. There's no harm in anyone writing, but I don't understand how some people don't seem to recognize that what they are putting out there bears little resemblance to what most of us expect from a published book. Then they are shocked when it isn't well-received.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Devil's Workshop (other topics)A Prophecy of Dawn (other topics)
Evah & the Unscrupulous Thwargg (other topics)
Vampire Asylum (other topics)
Women and Goddesses in Myth and Sacred Text (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Vicky Adin (other topics)K.D. McQuain (other topics)
Jeff Goins (other topics)
Jenny Blake (other topics)
Chris Guillebeau (other topics)
More...
While there is no such thing as a bad review, there is such a thing as bad publicity. Such as an author going ballistic because a five star review did not claim that it was the greatest book since sliced paper.
PS, I do not post reviews on Goodreads, Amazon, Booklikes, etc., as I do not want to be accused of adding to a colleague's star ratings, but my reviews do show on my Goodreads blog as that is a feed from my blog.