Self published ebooks - horrible idea for new authors ?

[Stan]

At first glance the self published ebook market on Amazon and Barnes and Noble seems like it would be the perfect fit for new authors. You can publish your own boom for little to zero cost. Submit your first book, develope a fan base, and imimediatly start earning money on what used to be a hobby.

BUT

Sparked by some rather harsh reviews of some new self-published authors I recently ran accross, I started thinking.

In the past if a new author had a first novel published that for what ever reason was received poorly by the public or critics there was always the consolation that only a few copies were sold, and in a year or so they would disappear entirely, forgotten by the general publich at large.

But now, no matter how much you grow as an author, no matter how many years pass by or how many skills you gain. That first novel will still be out there othe web. Along with all the criticisim on what an untalented hack you are and what a horrible book you wrote.

It seems to me that ebooks - and the harshness of the Internet critics - may in the end actually discourage authors. Never able to over come the comments about their first neophyte attempt of becoming an author

[terpkristin]

Interesting, I never though about the double-edged sword aspects of self-publishing and the permanence of the internet. I've always thought that self-publishing mostly suffers from advertising...it's hard to break out and get noticed without a) sounding arrogant or b) spending a lot of money.

I'm sympathetic to self-publishers, and would like to support them more, but I completely realize that the best way of getting me to read your work is to show me what someone I respect thinks of it. I'd like to think that authors can grow out of their initial works and not have to constantly answer for them...but it sounds like for some, that doesn't happen. Probably most. I mean, I think of Elantris and realize it was pretty obviously a first book. I'm not sure that if I'd been introduced to Brandon Sanderson via that book, that I'd have read anything else by him and been such a fan. Same thing goes for Neal Stephenson's Zodiac. I mean, it's OK, but it's nothing compared to Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon. Thankfully, it's also nothing like Anathem or Reamde.

Is there a way to solve this? Maybe create spaces for "first works" that are kinda like safe spaces, where there's full disclosure that the works are "firsts" and that authors grow? I suppose self-published authors have it worse, since they don't have any advertising, but I'm guessing there are a fair few non-self-published authors who also write one and are done. Is that any different, really, from people who do their own music, or comedy? Is there a way to reduce the impact?

Hopefully it doesn't scare off too many. I'd hate for the world to lose the next great thing for fear of the stigma of the first work...

[Gordon]

As someone who's charging headlong down this path, I think the onus is on us, the writers, to deal with it. If we publish prematurely and allow the public to see something "finished" that really isn't finished, there's nobody to blame but us ourselves. First impressions matter.

It's not the case that there's absolutely no recourse, either. If you really feel like you've sabotaged your reputation by releasing poor work early on, you can write later works under a pseudonym.

[Otto]

Agree with Gord.
Authors have the responsibility to make their books as good as possible, especially if they don't have the benefit of a professional editor and agent. Sending a bad book to agents or publishers can be just as bad for a writer as releasing bad eBooks. And then there's the element of actually getting a contract, but signing away your book rights...

That said, it does take having a thick skin. I'm working on my first book now (and outlining the next), and I'm doing it completely in the open, posting pages of the first draft every day on my website. I might scare away some potential readers by posting some imperfect content, but my hope is that the deadline of having to produce at least 14 pages a week and the potential interactivity of talking with readers about the story will do more to spread the word.

To steal and tweak a quote from Cory Doctorow, "Authors have more to fear from obscurity than piracy and a few bad reviews."

[Semora]

The bulk of books I read nowadays are self-published Kindle books. The shift happened gradually after getting a Kindle in 2009 and seeing the rising price of traditionally published ebooks.

Also, I don't think that self-published works are necessarily more at risk of being spotlighted by harsh critics. Any author (regardless of publishing route) should have a bit of thick skin I think.

I've given glowing reviews on Amazon for self-published works and been very blunt about popular traditionally published books I didn't like (and vice versa).

[Stan]

I've actually seen authors post apologies in the amazon authors, or readers comments section where they explain that everything is fixed now. They now have a better editor, or it was something written many years ago.

Frankly - neither apology nor explanation seemed to help. If anything it pointed out to new visitors that there was a problem.

I kind of like the idea of a first book section,where authors can release their first works without fear they will bias others from purchasing their work later on when they have gained more skills. But isn't this kind of the point of Smashwords and other sites,like it ?