Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
III. Goodreads Readers
>
Why don't more people read Self-published authors?
One author I edit for is the most professional self-published author I've ever known. She hires a story editor, a line editor, a proofreader, and a cover artist...for EVERY book. No shortcuts!
I use a copy editor and a proofreader - amazing the inconsistencies and syntax and grammar issues that they spotted. My own preference: I don't use a story-level editor. I do my own overall theme, tone, character development and plotting. Other authors may want this level of collaboration from an editor. I do workshop my work; my current book had chapters reviewed by a UCLA extension novel writing class. This was helpful.
Heather wrote: "One author I edit for is the most professional self-published author I've ever known. She hires a story editor, a line editor, a proofreader, and a cover artist...for EVERY book. No shortcuts!"I WISH I had access to a writing group or class...I come from a small town in the middle of nowhere, so options are limited. :(
I suspect that parking is relatively easy, at least.Perhaps a virtual writers critiquing group? Maybe with a group of GR author friends who write in your genre? Use a teleconference sometimes if this isn't cost prohibitive - maybe limit calls to 30 min a month with the group featuring one writer's stuff per month? And use chat functions for non call meetings.
I prefer face-to-face, but I'm in a mammoth urban area.
I suspect it is very hard to change the minds of those who have decided to tar all indies with the same brush. However, some of us do take producing a professional product, up to the standards of the traditionally-published books we grew up reading, very seriously.
Jenna wrote: "Heather wrote: "One author I edit for is the most professional self-published author I've ever known. She hires a story editor, a line editor, a proofreader, and a cover artist...for EVERY book. No..."Some good ideas, although I definitely prefer in-person. I'll look around. :)
Alicia's comment is right on the mark! No group of persons should ever be stereotyped.The negative opinions regarding the poor quality of self-published books is due to the fact that so many are poorly written and contain an exceptional number of technical errors. The hundreds of self-published authors that meet or even exceed the standards associated with quality literary workmanship are tainted by the thousands that do not even come close to meeting minimal established standards.
There are books, periodicals, seminars, classes, and lectures available at little or no cost through public libraries, book stores, community colleges, and literary associations that provide detailed information regarding what to do, how to write, and then seek publishing opportunities for one's work.
Too many aspiring writers elect to not expend the time, energy, and resources to learn proper technical writing skills (spelling, grammar, punctuation, syntax, narration, and plot development) before attempting to produce a literary work. Some that do, make the mistake of attempting to proofread and edit their own work rather than obtain the input and expertise of established copy editors and conceptual editors.
The adage "Anything worth doing is worth doing well!" is worth heeding. The odds of any writer attaining commercial success and becoming a best-selling author are very slim. However; some do. There is no reason why you could not become one of them. Increase the odds in your favor by doing it right the first time or, at the very least, the second time.
I just spent two days of my life making a couple of really tiny typo corrections to my ebook version - because, although no one has pointed them out since 2015, it bugged me that I found them. I care, a lot.I believe indie writing is my best bet for maintaining high standards. Mine. As I slowly find people who like my kind of layered, complex mainstream stories; who like to live a character's life from the inside; and who say they are waiting breathlessly for the next one, I am encouraged. And I work even harder on the next one.
I don't believe speed to market is imperative, but would do what I do faster if I could. I cringe when someone says they have finished their first draft and asks for an editor's name so they can dump that job and get on with writing the next book. I wish them well, but I cringe.
Perhaps this anecdote will help answer the question:This past weekend, my wife’s indie publishing company, Amphorae Publishing (with several imprints), exhibited at the third largest book festival in America, held annually in Tucson, AZ. We displayed a diverse set of award-winning, highly regarded, and well-reviewed books in multiple genres for two days and there was a gratifying amount of traffic at our booth. Though we sold a fair number of books, we estimated that a 90% of the people who stopped by wanted to know about publishing their own book.
That the “means of production” are now in the hands of anyone with the time and a few dollars to “publish” a book is a double edged sword. While it democratizes the process (a great thing), it has also created the same situation as with poetry - everyone wants to write poetry but few people read or buy it.
While I still hope to discover exciting new voices from the self-pubbed world in the literary fiction category (what I read), I have found it next to impossible to come up with an efficient process to guide that discovery. For this category anyway, the traditional publishing machine still does the best job of separating the wheat from the chafe. That may not be true for the genre categories but I typically don’t read genre. Good lit fiction books self-published are probably not discoverable beyond the author’s friends and family, sad as this may be.
I’ve been in publishing one way or another my entire career, and I am a serious business man as well. The business side of self -publishing is daunting.
Alicia wrote: "I just spent two days of my life making a couple of really tiny typo corrections to my ebook version - because, although no one has pointed them out since 2015, it bugged me that I found them. I ca..."Alicia, you remind me of most of the authors I work with. They write, rewrite, and rewrite again. They have critique partners and beta readers. They hire copyeditors (me), formatters, and proofreaders, and they hire professional cover designers. And then they work hard to market like crazy without spamming people.
Their theory about the unfortunate "indie = low quality" stereotype is that the bad ones will weed themselves out, and the good authors who care and who work hard at their craft will eventually be the ones who are still standing after the others fall away. For their sake and that of other high-quality indie writers, I hope that's true.
I don't care for much of what mainstream publishing puts out, and I'll always give an indie author a look if others have recommended the work, but I'm probably a rarity in that.
Absolutely Linda. I have won book awards and try to publish good professional-quality books, professionally edited. I rewrite at least five times before going to publication but I fear they are still lost in the mire of poor quality indie books and that gives credence to the mainstream publishing view that, as you say, "Indie = Low Quality."I hope the theory that the bad ones will weed themselves out is true but then they may just be replaced by other new bad ones.
Sorry if I am a bit disillusioned, but the mainstream publishers seem only to be interested in publishing on the back of celebrity, with the possible exception of journalists. Have you noticed how many get mainstream contracts?
I read that Frederick Forsythe had "The Day of the Jackel" rejected 18 times before it was accepted. Well, I can beat that, but not one of the rejecting publishers ever read a word before they rejected.
Jim wrote: "Alicia's comment is right on the mark! No group of persons should ever be stereotyped.The negative opinions regarding the poor quality of self-published books is due to the fact that so many are ..."
I'm certainly one who made a point to revise my manuscript every time I finished another writers meeting. I have listened to seminars from well known published authors, editors, and agents. All their advice, I applied to my own writing. My first novel took almost nine years to self-publish because I learned all I could along the way, and I made the necessary changes. A few beta readers gave feedback, and I took into account their comments and what needed to be revised. It was then edited twice (by two different people) before sent off to the paid professional one. I took my book seriously because I wanted a good book over a successful yet poorly written one.
I've self-published nine mystery novels, and I read lots of self-published novels. What I like best about self-published books is that they are often a lot more unique. The authors are more free to write the kind of stories they've been searching for and can't find in the bookstores. That's why I started writing in the first place. I had stories going around in my head, and I couldn't find anything like them, anywhere. My newest book, Breadcrumbs and Bombs, is about the former Sudetenland during WWII. It was really difficult finding any information about the Sudetenland when I was doing research for the book. But I managed to find enough so that I could write the story. And guess what? It's my best selling book.
Susan, you've hit upon the real problem, which is something Stephen mentioned as well: the mainstream publishers only want what is already out there because they're guaranteed for it to sell. And who are they selling it to? The sheep who think mainstream books are the only "valid" books out there.Unfortunately, readers are hungry for unique books! This is great in a way, because authors who aren't finding what they want to read are now sitting down to write it. Great books are being written, but the problem lies in the marketing (or lack of) due to a number of factors, money being a major one.
I'd like to also point out, [some] publishers have definitely become more lazy as time goes on, so depending on who they are, it isn't always worth it. For example, I've heard of a number of authors who did well as a self-published author and the publishers then feel like hey, if I take this on, it's already selling... Admittedly, I'd be pretty happy if a publishing company wanted to go 'big' with my stuff, but on the other hand, I love the flexibility of having my own goals/deadlines rather than theirs.
I've also watched well-known authors that started out with publishers (i.e. Anna Lee Huber and Sherwood Smith) who have self-published things their publishers didn't want to.
I tried to explain this to a friend who's had two books published by a branch of Scholastic. 15-20 years of her life, and 2 books, because she has to have an 'ok' to submit even an outline of an idea. Whereas I have the freedom to publish what I want whenever I want.
Great point, Jenna. There are many who self-publish because they want to keep the rights and control to their work. Period. They don't self-pub because it's their only choice, or because their work has been rejected by "everyone." They simply want to have the freedom you've described.
Lynda wrote: "Great point, Jenna. There are many who self-publish because they want to keep the rights and control to their work. Period. They don't self-pub because it's their only choice, or because their work..."Freedom - and certainty that what you choose to write will get published. If you write slightly off the beaten track, you are taking a big risk that the big publishers won't like what you've spent fifteen years creating - and you will have lost whatever time you spend submitting it, and being unable to write other, dependent, things (such as series, and trilogies). The writer invests her life, and the agent says no in a heartbeat.
Rather unbalanced proposition for the writer, if there are other alternatives. Or if he's positive he won't get a publishing contract.
Erato - I just wanted to say, I've seen local grocery stores or other little places that have a shelf titled 'local authors'. They don't sell well next to all the bestsellers (which is all that a local grocery might sell), especially if their cover doesn't pop.
Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their written works to established book or magazine or is too lazy to do so?
C.E. wrote: "Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their written works to..."Wow.
I agree whole heartedly with Jenna. To give away all rights to an IP is ludicrous, especially for a first time author who likely won't get much of an advance. There is an allure about having a book in a book stores, but look around. Small sellers have shuttered and even the big guns like Barnes and Noble are losing money every quarter. It's a trickle down system and publishers/agents are forced to stick with tried and true stories and authors. Bestsellers are only bestsellers because the publishing houses put the majority of their marketing push behind established names...those names are also getting the bigger advances so it boils down to math. Publishers need to recoup. I follow most of they big publishers on social media and their outreach - in terms of vision and originality - is pretty tepid. If you're clever, with good marketing/social media skills, and of course, a good book, the upside is all yours. It's not being afraid. It's being smart.
C.E. wrote: "Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their written works to..."I would like to point out the obvious on this - several well-loved authors were rejected by publishing companies before someone said yes. And frankly, like Andrea said, those publishing companies did a ton of marketing. a TON - yes, even for J.K. Rowling.
C.E. wrote: "Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their written works to..."There are many authors who choose to self-publish even after receiving offers from traditional publishers. It all depends on whether the offer is worth the tradeoff in book rights, marketing obligations, etc. Not every self-publisher is lazy or a reject.
All personal opinions aside, the simple fact of the matter is this:Not so long ago, only a few hundred thousand living writers could legitimately merit the traditional title of "Published Author". The inventions of the personal computer and internet, along with the wide-spread proliferation of self-publishing venues, resulted in literally millions being able to now legitimately profess to being a published author.
The odds that were once considered extremely great against a writer ever becoming a commercially successful published author are now nearly insurmountable due merely to the vast numbers of writers competing in the arena.
Jim wrote: "All personal opinions aside, the simple fact of the matter is this:Not so long ago, only a few hundred thousand living writers could legitimately merit the traditional title of "Published Author"..."
This is why for me it's a hobby. A beloved, must-have hobby, but otherwise, I could get really stressed really fast.
I don't think it is fair or helpful to say trade publishers only publish celebrities or known names, without any thought to unique stories. Or that readers are sheep. Why insult authors who choose to go with a publisher?Read N. K. Jemison or Ann Leckie and tell me they are cookie cutter.
Those books by celebrities and bestsellers are what allow publishers to take a chance on new authors. And they do. All the time.
There are also some great authors self publishing. Courtney Milan, Andy Weir, and Annie Bellet to name a few.
Self published authors don't like being stereotyped. How about not stereotyping trade published authors as well? There is plenty of room for both.
Traditional publishers can only publish a tiny portion of what is submitted to them. They choose to publish what they like (or sometimes seek out - with celebrities and such).Authors can only choose traditional publishers after a long submission process if they are offered a suitable contract. Very low odds, even with good writers.
Traditional publishing may be an author's goal, but it isn't a choice; only submitting is a choice.
C.E. wrote: "Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their written works to established book or magazine or is too lazy to do so?"I suggest that you try going through the endless submission grind, and wait to hit the two or three lotteries that make up getting a legacy publishing contract and a published book, before you share any more baseless comments like this.
Hello lovely people - I am pretty much replying to everyone in general on this thread.First, wouldn't it be wonderful if the name of this thread was: Why are readers now buying works from indies instead of the big pubs? Could happen!
Second, I think indies need a centralized place to promote that is low in cost and has a wide reach with at least a dozen tentacles that help us promote. The sad fact is that people must see something over and over and over again before they say, "Hmmm, I'm going to check that out."
Just a couple of thoughts. The big pubs promote and promote. It's in everyone's face and that is why you may only earn 12% (if lucky) of the gross sales while with a traditional pub.
I agree with the sheeple idea - it's why start ups struggle against the giants who have built their branding.
Finally, I love you all! Thank you for your wisdom sharing and caring. Let's keep going .... we can do this indie thing because we are just that friggin good! A way will be made.
Alicia wrote: "Traditional publishers can only publish a tiny portion of what is submitted to them. They choose to publish what they like (or sometimes seek out - with celebrities and such).Authors can only cho..."
Not sure if your reply was directed at me, but I understand that trade publishing takes on very few submissions. They take on all the costs, so it makes sense. I think you can point to many books put out by trade publishers that have failed, so they obviously take risks. Those crappy books by celebrities allow them to accept books by unknown authors who may or may not be successful.
My objection was to some of the comments insinuating that they only accept books by celebrities or cookie cutter stories. It simply isn't true. It is insulting to authors who go with a publisher, as well as to their readership. As if self published authors are the only authors putting out new and innovative work.
Reyna's Mom wrote: "Not sure if your reply was directed at me, but I understand that trade publishing takes on very few submissions..."I was reacting to (not responding to - others did that) comment 2142 by C. E. which was so negative about anyone not traditionally published's quality that there was no place to start a civil discussion.
Traditional publishers have been the mainstay of the world of reading - mostly - until about 2005, when the Kindle really got going. They are not embracing the digital revolution (for example, they often price their ebook higher than one of the print versions.
Another example would be the B&N website, a horror to find anything on - and the Nook is a nice little ereader which deserved better.
Digital isn't going to go away because some people are reactionary.
The worst part of traditional publishing is how they keep a stranglehold on what readers can buy from them by letting in very few writers of any diversity - because there isn't room. If you are writing difficult subjects - go indie, or be incredibly lucky (a few diverse books and authors are let in every year).
As if self published authors are the only authors putting out new and innovative work.
Of course not. But if someone writes a novel with a disabled main character, indie is much more likely to get that book to where readers can buy a book which includes them.
Please excuse my awkward phrasing - I am very tired, and did want to respond to your post.
You say - Those books by celebrities and bestsellers are what allow publishers to take a chance on new authors. And they do. All the time. If only that were true, but I'm afraid, from my experience, it simply is not. I've been rejected by mainstream publishers over twenty times but not one of them was prepared to read anything I'd written. But am I bitter - you bet I am.
Lynda wrote: "C.E. wrote: "Seriously: Why would anyone want to read something that either is not good enough to be published by a professional publisher or is written by someone who is afraid to submit their wri..."I agree... the possible reason to self publish is not only rejection or laziness or not being good enough.
I self-publish because I want to let my friends and relatives have the opportunity to buy and read my works. From what I understand, sending manuscripts directly to publishers is a waste of time. First, you need to hire a professional editor and then submit your work to a literary agent who has mainstream publishers in their repertoire. I also understand that if your work in the self-publishing world sells well and has many 5 star reviews, you can use that as your sales pitch to an agent.
Interesting topic. 44 pages already and I'm sure it'll go on for many more. I agree that a lot of it is just product placement. I type in various words to amazon just to see if I can get my book to appear -- even my exact title! -- and it usually doesn't (at least not in the first 10 pages). So the 'zon is manipulating things there, either toward paid advertisers or books they think will sell. They're a business; this is normal and to be expected.
Certainly, the low barrier to entry has allowed in more books of varying quality, but I am not often blown away by what I find on my library's shelves either. It seems a shame one would paint all indie pub as schlock. The remainder bins are proof the 'pros' don't always get it right either.
What the world needs is a computer program that can pick a winner. If I knew anything about AI, I'd be working on that right now.
Gary wrote: "I self-publish because I want to let my friends and relatives have the opportunity to buy and read my works. From what I understand, sending manuscripts directly to publishers is a waste of time. First, you need to hire a professional editor and then ..."Gary, are you saying you self-publish without hiring a copyeditor? Please say no. I'm hoping I misunderstood your comment above.
I say this as a copyeditor, yes, but also as a reader. The self-pub clients I work with are meticulous about making sure their work is polished before even considering hitting the "publish" button, and they fight against the "self-pubs don't edit" stereotype.
Gary wrote: "From what I understand, sending manuscripts directly to publishers is a waste of time. First, you need to hire a professional editor and then submit your work to a literary agent who has mainstream publishers in their repertoire. I also understand that if your work in the self-publishing world sells well and has many 5 star reviews, you can use that as your sales pitch to an agent. "Your information about traditional publishing is not correct. If a writer choses to take the trad path you do NOT hire an editor. It's a waste of money, if you receive an offer of rep, the agent might suggest editorial changes. Then if the manuscript is picked up by a publisher, they have their own in-house editorial staff.
It's also not true that 5-star reviews can sway an agent for already self published titles. Agents look at sales. The last I heard of (so my figures could be out of date) was that you need a minimum of 20,000 sales at a price point higher than $2.99 to attract any interest from agents and big publishers. Some agencies, like TridentMedia, won't look at self published authors with less than 250,000 sales.
Legitimate, established traditional publishers employ a professional in-house or sub-contracted team of copy editors, conceptual editors, layout design artists, and graphic design artists. They also employ an acquisition team that reviews submitted manuscripts to determine whether or not they meet established quality standards before a contract offer is even considered.
Denise wrote: "but I wanted full control. ..."Same here - love your comment.
Cristine, this is not an advertising page. You might want to remove your post before it gets flagged.
-Because they are unknowns-They represent themselves and are not represented or published by a well known or big-time publisher
-They don't trust that they will go all out to edit their works
-self-published authors are deemed just not as good as famous authors
I could keep going but the general ideas and reasons are there. Not everyone is going to love you as a self-published author but there are those who do and I suppose that's worth considering.
Justin wrote: "-Because they are unknowns-They represent themselves and are not represented or published by a well known or big-time publisher
-They don't trust that they will go all out to edit their works
-sel..."
But we can keep working hard no matter what. Find opportunities to get yourself out their. Maybe even find groups that can help you through your writing journey. I know I'm doing it :)
I have been published both ways, traditional and Indie Assist. The traditional publisher didn't promote me. I made very little money and my cost to buy books for signings was markedly higher.I got my rights back and did Indie assist with a publisher who does what I don't want to do. She uploads my books, makes sure it is all done correctly and the price I pay to get books for signings is about half the price. All in all, I will pick Indie assist.
Now if Bantam, Simon and Schuster or anyone in the big 5 wanted to publish me, I would most likely change my mind.
What sometimes gives self-publishing a bad name is people putting books out there are so many mistakes you can hardly read them. If people would learn the mechanics of writing, life for the self-published author would improve, mechanics and editing are the keys.
Agree. Good self-published books look like traditional books. As writers, we help ourselves when we write the best stories and produce the best books. https://www.amazon.com/Love-Pour-Over...
Readers should trust their own ability to assess a book: read the description, the reviews, and especially the Look Inside feature on Amazon. Try the writer out - is this your kind of book? Does the story start well and pull you in? Does the writer handle English comfortably for you and this kind of book?Do any of the reviews complain about the writer's inability to finish a story?
Do a little bit of work - and enjoy finding new writers.
Or continue doing what some reviewer somewhere recommends, if that's what you prefer.
Some indie writers work extremely hard, and write very well, and tackle subjects you might not find in traditionally published books.
I love indie authors, and it's only partly because I edit for them. The other part is that I find myself so invested (emotionally) in wanting them to do well and gain new readers because I know they are working at it and saving every penny for great covers, quality editing, and solid formatting—knowing they may never get rich (or break even) on each book but still giving 100% toward them.I think the public's perception is finally beginning to turn when it comes to indies and the quality that's out there. The ability to self-publish allowed crap writers to put out the equivalent of first drafts for sale, and it soured many readers on even giving self-pubs a try. But the number of indie authors who take their craft seriously is slowly but surely overtaking the market, and the writers who just don't care to work at it are essentially sifting themselves out.
Readers are seeking out books that are inventive, creatively diverse, and not the same ol' same ol' that they can find on bookstore shelves everywhere.
The publishing method utilized, whether it be traditional, self-published, or vanity press, does not matter as long as the author's technical writing, narration, and plot/sub-plot writing skills are well developed and professional and the copy and conceptual editing and layout and cover/spine/back matter designs have been professionally executed.That said; it is an extremely competitive field involving literally millions of aspiring authors. The odds of any published work becoming commercially successful are nearly insurmountable. However, some novice writers do eventually succeed. One cannot succeed if one does not at least try.
It is an interesting topic, and I completely agree with the points made. When self-publishing opened up as an option the quality of writing really was hit or miss. I do think though that people are realising it is not easy money though, and the ones left really working on it are the ones truly working and caring about their writing craft. Or at least it is heading that way!
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...
I agree completely with the editing comments. Seriously. It's a tiny, little picture. I would put the content way over the cover, but that's just me.
I see huge spelling, grammar, and whatever else mistakes every single day in mainstream media. I feel like people shouldn't have to pay for a book that's been poorly edited.
But that's just me.