# Why Indie Authors Still Suck



## scoutxx (Oct 23, 2009)

I don't know if this has been posted here yet or not, but it's one of the most entertaining post/comments flame war I've ever read.

Enjoy

http://anonnymouse13.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/why-indie-authors-still-suck/


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

This looks like a lovely example of WHOA.   So. . . . .we'll be watching it closely.


----------



## S.A. Mulraney (May 20, 2011)

This was just asking for it. I actually stopped reading once I read the following "I work for a publishing house...". Enough said in my book. A desperate worker in a dying/morphing industry who isn't happy with the way it's all changing. A bitter member of an exclusive club whose exclusivity means little anymore.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Rude, but essentially true.  Not sure what the purpose is though.  

Have you ever noticed no one writes a letter to the editor sayings they need to stop doing something they're doing?  It's always someone else should stop.  As if writing that letter is going to make them do that?  

This is a worthless fight.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Heh, it was entertaining at least. Sadly, I agreed with many points.  But it did seem a little bit self-serving.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Bob Mayer said:


> This is a worthless fight.


Excellent point.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Anger management might be a good option for this person.
Not sure if being anonymously rude is really the way to get anything accomplished unless the goal is just to vent. In that case, this person might just want to take their own advice and just make some notes on a napkin or something.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

Y'know, these things don't even make me angry anymore. It's more like "Pfft. *eyeroll* Whatever."


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

I LOL'ed.


----------



## Bec (Aug 24, 2012)

I like it when people tell me I'm not going to make any money ever, but my bank statements tell me otherwise...


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

it's called "link bait."

many people use the technique to build traffic by publishing -- usually anonymously -- ranting screeds of questionable value and provenance. 

it's pretty easy to do by following (or violating depending on your perspective) a few rules of rhetoric. This guy is using over-generalization -- "tarring with the same brush" -- to lump every indie author into the fecal burrito. He or she adds the little "honesty disclaimer" at the bottom by admitting that there are--in fact--people who do not fit in the neat basket-o-crap he lays out but then makes sure to engage the reader by assuring him or her that that exemption does not apply to anybody reading the piece.

the more people who become outraged and visit the site--telling their friends about it (like the OP), the more justification for using this technique. 

there's nothing really new to see there. these are not the droids you're looking for. move along.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Someone with no experience self-publishing telling other people how to self-publish correctly

Useful.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

The usual mixture of truths, half-truths and lies (or untruths inspired by incompetence).

Nothing I haven't read before, but it was quite amusing seeing it formulated by an anonymous coward.

I enjoyed the impotent rage, but on the whole… forgettable drivel.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Nathan Lowell said:


> it's called "link bait."
> 
> many people use the technique to build traffic by publishing -- usually anonymously -- ranting screeds of questionable value and provenance.
> 
> ...


You'd think people would learn to stop feeding the trolls after a while. Stop giving them pageviews, they starve and die. But we just continue to post links and drive traffic to every random blog highlighting posts by "industry" people with questionable credentials who are just chumming the water looking for sharks. I'm less surprised by the blog post than I am the fact that we still feel the need to give them attention. (and no, I did not click on the link nor will I.)


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

This industry will take a big leap forward when everyone just ignores fools like that.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I simply can't read this pile of manure. Get with the times. I mean . . . DOUBLE SPACES AFTER EVERY PERIOD!!!!    

ETA: Damn, the comments are closed. I was going to point out that most of my works are self-edited. Just to make heads esplode.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I wish I could get out of the habit of doublespacing after a period...


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Ah the turd smell of fresh linkbait.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

_You're going to get rejected, believe me. You think that these big named authors became famous overnight? I realize it appears that way, but it's sadly not true. At all. Most of them have been working their fingers bloody trying to get someone with some sort of influence to notice them. Most of them take at least a decade to take off, and only a handful actually last longer than five years on the best seller list._

Way to make traditional publishing sound attractive.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

S.A. Mulraney said:


> This was just asking for it. I actually stopped reading once I read the following "I work for a publishing house...". Enough said in my book. A desperate worker in a dying/morphing industry who isn't happy with the way it's all changing. A bitter member of an exclusive club whose exclusivity means little anymore.


Pretty much verbatim what I was going to say. 
I stopped reading at that point too. It's clearly just another rant from a frustrated dinosaur who doesn't like things that are different.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You'd think people would learn to stop feeding the trolls after a while. Stop giving them pageviews; they starve and die. But we just continue to post links and drive traffic to every random blog highlighting posts by "industry" people with questionable credentials who are just chumming the water looking for sharks. I'm less surprised by the blog post than I am the fact that we still feel the need to give them attention. (and no, I did not click on the link nor will I.)


THIS!

Hear, hear!


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I simply can't read this pile of manure.


Exactly. Which is why the writer had to self-publish it in a blog. No "real" magazine would have accepted it.


----------



## Craig Halloran (May 15, 2012)

_chuckle_


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Think this might be our favorite one-star indie book reviewer?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Bookmark this one, folks.  People who actually believe this stuff are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

I welcome the day when the "right to publish" is no longer seen as something that needs to be "earned," but is something that everyone takes for granted as much as the printing press or universal literacy.  Throw open the gates!  Tear down the walls!  If you've got a story to tell, you should be able to tell it so that the whole world can hear (though whether or not they'll listen is another matter entirely).

I would love to have a conversation with this person, if for no other reason than to watch their head explode.  It's telling when this is the sort of behavior we see from "industry professionals."


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You'd think people would learn to stop feeding the trolls after a while. Stop giving them pageviews, they starve and die. But we just continue to post links and drive traffic to every random blog highlighting posts by "industry" people with questionable credentials who are just chumming the water looking for sharks. I'm less surprised by the blog post than I am the fact that we still feel the need to give them attention. (and no, I did not click on the link nor will I.)


^Yep. Saw this on another board, and clicked without thinking (too early in the morning to think straight). I normally wouldn't click on a) unknown links, or b) links to people being crazy about something they know nothing about.

Person involved in traditional publishing going postal on indie writers. Film at eleven. Yawn.


----------



## MsTee (Jul 30, 2012)

Every couple of months we see a post like this.  Same old, same old.


----------



## KayL.Wetter (Aug 8, 2013)

There's only one thing articles like this do for me. They make me more driven to succeed. I know I can accomplish anything I put my mind to. I have always done that. Put in the hard work and just ignore those that think they have a right to judge when they don't even know. My husband just read the book on Steve Jobs. One of the things we got out of it is that he was the kind of man that when his employees said it can't be done, he said basically "Make it so. Do it anyways." and then low and behold it was possible and achieved. That's the way I see things. people like this say "You can't do that" or "You'll never make it, your not good enough" and I say "Wanna bet. Watch me, I'll get there someday somehow."  

To all my Indie Publishers/Authors: "Yes we can! Go and conquer. Dream it, believe in it, write it, publish it, achieve it!" (I am quoting my own personal Jiminy Cricket.)


----------



## Tony Bertauski (May 18, 2012)

Hurtful. Inane. And funny.

From the FAQ (I read that, too): "Also, when I blog, I’m usually pretty f'ing drunk."


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

meh... back to writing.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

kayL.Wetter said:


> My husband just read the book on Steve Jobs. One of the things we got out of it is that he was the kind of man that when his employees said it can't be done, he said basically "Make it so. Do it anyways." and then low and behold it was possible and achieved.


Heh. I am a bit like that with my husband. I love it when he tells me something isn't possible because I will then make it possible IF I HAVE TO BEND TIME AND SPACE TO DO IT. And that, folks, is how I got a double mattress into the back of a Fiat Panda.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Okay, I actually read the article. He was neither entirely right nor entirely wrong. I giggled at some parts, but felt no outrage, because I never think anything applies to me. I AM SPECIAL, JUST LIKE EVERYONE!!


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I wish I could get out of the habit of doublespacing after a period...


Why? That's the way it's supposed to be.  Or at least, that's how I was always taught.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Yawn. Couldn't even care enough to click on it. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Michael Kingswood said:


> Why? That's the way it's supposed to be.  Or at least, that's how I was always taught.


I learned to type on a typewriter, too!

We have dated ourselves.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

I really don't know why anyone wastes their time on drivel like this.  There are so many better HELPFUL articles and threads out there that won't make you feel like crap.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I learned on a typewriter too and used to do the double space thing right up until a lynch party came from the copy editors' office carrying pitchforks and torches. Then I stopped.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

S.A. Mulraney said:


> This was just asking for it. I actually stopped reading once I read the following "I work for a publishing house...". Enough said in my book. A desperate worker in a dying/morphing industry who isn't happy with the way it's all changing. A bitter member of an exclusive club whose exclusivity means little anymore.


Haha! Me too!  I literally stopped to copy that quote because I was going to comment on it but then saw comments were closed and clicked off the site. I could practically smell the fear, disguised as disdain, radiating up from the post like a fresh turd on a hot summer day.

I hope that person has some money saved up or an alternate source of income.


----------



## Sarah M (Apr 6, 2013)

I didn't read the whole thing. I stopped when I realized some people desperately cling to the belief the internet only exists as a vehicle for their whining.


----------



## Midnight Whimsy (Jun 25, 2013)

I read the whole article, and as a few others have mentioned, the blogger had a few good points. What really puzzles me is the number of people here who said they don't read this "crap". Yes, it was crudely presented, but to be smart and knowledgeable about any issue, you need to know both sides of the argument. You need an open mind. No, I don't agree with a lot of what the blogger said, but I can see the relevant points he made. It's like a Democrat only reading Democrat blogs and articles, only watching Democrat-angled news, and only talking to other Democrats -- that person is going to lose perspective entirely. Just because you're a Democrat doesn't mean everything said in Democrat circles is correct -- but if you never leave the circle, how would you know? (I picked Democrat as a completely random example; don't read into it.)

You don't have to agree with the blogger or enjoy the article. But every once in a while, every person needs to challenge their perceptions and knowledge -- instead of just reading blogs that only tell you what you want to hear. And challenging your perceptions means really hearing what the other person is saying -- and not immediately discounting their opinion because they're on the "wrong" side of yours.

My thought, anyway. 

M.W


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I learned to type on a typewriter, too!
> 
> We have dated ourselves.


Me too, and a friend, just a few years older than me learned on a manual typewriter.  I had a hard enough time with an electric! Until I started writing in my thirties, the only use I got out of my typing skills (and I use the term skills loosely) was that my older brother roped me into typing his college papers.  However, little did I know that the year of typing I took to fill an elective my senior year would be one of the two most useful classes I took in high school.

(The other was advanced biology because I got to skip regular biology in college--which helped me get into my respiratory therapy program.)


----------



## H.M. Ward (May 16, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> I learned to type on a typewriter, too!
> 
> We have dated ourselves.


lol. That's what I was thinking. Now, where's my carbon paper?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I doubt he's an industry professional, as he claims.

Why?

1) His post is unprofessioanl in just about every way, most especially on a technical level. (*gasp* Did he ... self-edit his blog post?)

2) He has gone out of his way to remain completely anonymous.

Number 2 here is telling. If his goal is to want to be the Simon Cowell of literature, then he needs to own it. Admit who he is and not hide behind the curtain of anonymity. Simon Cowell is rude. Gordon Ramsey is foul-mouthed. Both stand proudly behind their opinions because they believe their opinions are right and correct and true.

This guy hides behind anonymity, largely because, if his claim of working for a "big-name" publisher is true, he either is not in a position qualified for uttering these opinions from on high (think: slush-pile editor), or he doesn't actually work in the industry at all, but wants to pretend to, to lend his opinion the air of authority.

In other words, if he is who he says he is, and his employer found out, he'd be fired on the spot, either for acting like he's more important than he is, or for giving his company a PR black eye by uttering such illiterate, foul-mouthed stuff.

BTW, another sign of his unprofessionalism? Disagree here if you wish, but it's the extent of his use of profanity.

Profanity adds "volume" to one's opinion, but not substance or weight. It just makes one's opinion louder than the next. That's why profanity, when used as it is here, exists primarily to distract readers from the fact that one's argument is weak.

As mature writers, we know that there are many fine writers whose journey in the craft began here in IndieVille. They are no mere "diamonds in the rough" that only traditional publishing can shape into publishable writers. That's a begging-the-question line of argument.

"Oh, he/she has potential, but they're not up to traditionally-published standards."

"How do you know?"

"Because they're not traditionally published."

Such a line of argument is inherently weak, and yet he distracts logical thinkers from that fact by loading his begging the question argument with a ton of profanity.

The profanity will make his opinion louder and throw people off-target so that they're talking about how foul-mouthed he is and how "he might have a point if he made it civilly."

But that's his illusionist trick. He has no point; begging the question is an inherently weak argumentation strategy, every time it's tried. But thanks to his strategic use of profanity, most people will only be talking about whether he was right to word things so strongly, rather than talking about how he was begging the question.

Another example? He's even dismissive to readers, and equally insulting in doing so. "Only my opinion is relevant because readers are too stupid and undiscerning... they'll buy manure because they're not as smart as me." Another logical falsehood; saying that any and all who disagree are just stupid because only those who agree are smart is called demagoguery. Another inherently weak line of argumentation.

There are a lot of other weaknesses to his line of argumentation; most of his "points" can be refuted by a simple stroll through the Writer's Cafe. And granted, there are indies who fulfill his low expectations, but most of them don't come here... or at least, they don't stick around here, other than to troll.

Yet most folks in the WC want to at least appear fair-minded. So the popular take on something like this, among those interested in appearing fair-minded, will be, "He makes some good points, but presents them poorly." Or "if you strip away all the foul language and hostility, he probably has some legitimate points to make." Because being more completely dismissive is perceived as small-minded or "not open to critique" or whatnot.

Maybe I don't care about appearing "close-minded." Or maybe I'm just not worried that I somehow fall in the category that he wants to broad-brush us all into.

But I'll say this:

Yes, he's loud and foul-mouthed and bitter and nasty. That's why he chose anonymity. Because he's either a troll, or in fear he'd be fired if his employer found out it was him.

But beyond his presentation, his essential arguments are weak (which is why he chose loud, angry, bitter and foul-mouthed as a distraction strategy).

He begs the question. Engages in demagoguery. Largely ignores contradictory data. Paints with too broad a brush. All of these are weak argumentation strategies. He likely knows this, at some level, which is why he chose to present himself in such a brusque manner... to distract people from the weakness of his arguments. To change the focus from his content to its presentation.

Because his content is weak... and will only become weaker as consumers realize that trash authors (like the wife-murdering guy from Florida) are not making an impact once they hit "Publish," and none of us... NONE of us... has anything to fear from those books or authors. Folks like WMGFF are no more representative of WC Indies than Stephen King is on the opposite ends of the pole.

What those in traditional publishing do fear are the combined forces of great hybrid indies AND pure indies, proving that traditional publishing has done a poor, or at least incomplete, job of culling the wheat from the chaff using their traditional gatekeeper methods.

What they fear... and should fear... are the terrific indies (hybrid or pure) who keep publishing great stuff, lighting the way, showing how it's done and done well and done right by a growing number of indies.

What they fear is the success people like Victorine Lieske and David McAfee and David Dalglish and John Locke and Monique Martin and Karen Cantwell and Joe Konrath and ... well, I can go on and on and on ... these names and probably 100 others and more ... who are succeeding without the Big Six's direct involvement.

That's the core fear he's confronting. Obsolescence. Not of editors or formatters or cover artists... but of their success without the Big Six gatekeepers being granted the sole decision-making power on who gets a chance and who does not.

Indies do have lessons to learn. Like no matter how big the indie pond grows, there will always be folks who are huge successes, and folks who are below that, and folks who are mid-listers, and even bottom-listers. Nothing will ever turn ALL of us into Stephen King and Charlane Harris or whoever is your literary role model.

Doing things professionally? Yes, many of us have room for growth in that area.

But a blog post like this shouldn't concern any of us here. We are the "cream of the cream." And even among us, there will be those who do better than others.

But for oh so many reasons... he's not talking about any of us here. Even if he thinks he is.

And if you want to see some real editing skill, here's how a real editor would have distilled his long-winded, foul-mouthed post into its essential truthful points:



> Dear Independent Authors,
> 
> Please remember that if you wish to be professional authors, you ought to hold your work to professional standards.
> 
> ...


For all that length, all that profanity, those are about the only truths to be found out of his entire blog post.

The rest is poor argumentation, weak points, and loud-n-brassy insults to all and sundry.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

> I work for a publishing house


  

He sounds angry.

There are folks on these boards proving him wrong on a daily basis.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I wish I could get out of the habit of doublespacing after a period...


I doubt whether I'll ever be able to shift that habit! Thank goodness for find & replace!


----------



## Tony Bertauski (May 18, 2012)

swolf said:


> He sounds angry.
> 
> There are folks on these boards proving him wrong on a daily basis.


Or drunk. (See FAQ)


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> _You're going to get rejected, believe me. You think that these big named authors became famous overnight? I realize it appears that way, but it's sadly not true. At all. Most of them have been working their fingers bloody trying to get someone with some sort of influence to notice them. Most of them take at least a decade to take off, and only a handful actually last longer than five years on the best seller list._
> 
> Way to make traditional publishing sound attractive.


Exactly. Kind of makes you wonder what the point of this thing is.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> What really puzzles me is the number of people here who said they don't read this "crap". Yes, it was crudely presented, but to be smart and knowledgeable about any issue, you need to know both sides of the argument. You need an open mind.


I have an open mind. But I really doubt an article entitled "Why Indie Authors Still Suck" is going to improve my understanding on any issue. It's link bait, IMHO, and I'm with Julie-- I refuse to click on anything that appears to be written by someone who wants to get a lot of page hits by being "controversial" and "edgy." A well-written article that isn't clearly trying to antagonize people is an entirely different matter.


----------



## SunHi Mistwalker (Feb 28, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Bookmark this one, folks. People who actually believe this stuff are rapidly becoming an endangered species.
> 
> I welcome the day when the "right to publish" is no longer seen as something that needs to be "earned," but is something that everyone takes for granted as much as the printing press or universal literacy. Throw open the gates! Tear down the walls! If you've got a story to tell, you should be able to tell it so that the whole world can hear (though whether or not they'll listen is another matter entirely).
> 
> I would love to have a conversation with this person, if for no other reason than to watch their head explode. It's telling when this is the sort of behavior we see from "industry professionals."


You know, I've been hearing different versions of "You indies suck," since I first began indie publishing, and this is what I've discovered:

1) The people who spew this type of crap just want to get under our skin, slow us down and maybe even stop us. 
2) If you read enough of these negative articles, you just might begin to believe that you suck...really. 
3) All of these "proper" writers want the rest of us to get in line. They feel that we haven't paid our dues. 
4) Many of us indies believe we haven't paid our dues so we torture ourselves in various little ways, like reading these "indies you suck" articles. 
5) Many of these indie haters are selling products and services, and want us to feel so insecure that we buy their products and services which are *insert sarcasm* guaranteed to make our books better and instantaneously increase our sales.

For the most part, I ignore these fools. They can't stop me and they can't stop you, unless you let them.


----------



## Jack C. Nemo (Jul 5, 2013)

Trolling or joke? I'm not entirely sure. 

The most facepalming reply for me was, "Similar to this guy, I am a small publishing house and we have staff editors.", on page two. I'm pretty sure she's serious about her claims, despite thinking that were's and indie's are correct plurals.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

He's right - I suck.

So, now that we have that out of the way, I wonder if he'd like to compare checking accounts?

I'd be willing to bet I made more in July alone than what he's made all year.

It pays to suck.


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I simply can't read this pile of manure. Get with the times. I mean . . . DOUBLE SPACES AFTER EVERY PERIOD!!!!
> 
> ETA: d*mn, the comments are closed. I was going to point out that most of my works are self-edited. Just to make heads esplode.


ROFL


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

The article was meh, but some of the comments were rather sad. Mr Anthony J. Langford wrote,

_For the most part I tend to agree. The net is awash with self published drivel, people who don't want to put in the hard yards and are deluded enough to think that what their sycophantic friends say warrants publication. I have seven novels written from '04 until now that I have hung onto because I believe that theyre worth it and I intend to keep working on them and keep submitting or die trying. Self publishing for me, would mean failure._

I think Anthony J. needs a hug.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

DDark said:


> Most kids my age got a car for their 16th birthday. I got a typewriter.
> 
> ETA: Mind you, computers were around. I just thought that made me a legit writer.


I had a typewriter too. At fourteen I could only type with two fingers and the tips got so sore I made these cones out of tape and cotton to put over them.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I tend to agree with the guy who told the anonyblogging trad-pub-worker "Enjoy your $24,000 a year job while it lasts."  

I read that and laughed and laughed and laughed.  Too true.  Fear and lashing out all around these days...


----------



## ThomasCardin (Mar 18, 2013)

I can't look.

Already had my first real life encounter with a trade publishing sychophant. I thought we were friends, or going to be friends, but appearently self-published writers are only deserving of scorn and personal criticism. Life's too short.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> The article was meh, but some of the comments were rather sad. Mr Anthony J. Langford wrote,
> 
> _For the most part I tend to agree. The net is awash with self published drivel, people who don't want to put in the hard yards and are deluded enough to think that what their sycophantic friends say warrants publication. I have seven novels written from '04 until now that I have hung onto because I believe that theyre worth it and I intend to keep working on them and keep submitting or die trying. Self publishing for me, would mean failure._
> 
> I think Anthony J. needs a hug.


So sad. Julie bashed me for calling this Stockholm Syndrome before, but I still think that's what it is. No, Mr Anthony J. Langford is not being tortured. His life is not in danger. Yet, he is wasting it. The big 5 have him that figuratively beaten down.


----------



## mariehallwrites (Mar 14, 2013)

Oh jeez, this kind of mentality drives me crazy. I'm a writer and I work in the industry and I for one am GLAD that Indie exists. I read so many mss that I know are amazing, but we literally cannot place them because NY has made acquiring those books almost impossible. I hate writing rejections and on those occasions when I've read a book that just blows my mind I have suggested Indie as a possibility. NY seems to believe they're the authority on books, well they're wrong. It's the reader. Period. NY doesn't want historical, they don't want Urban Fantasy or Paranormal Romance... guess what, the readers are still gobbling them up. So you tell me who's behind the times

*eye roll*

Whatever, I'll continue to write my mostly self edited fantasy romances and cash those checks at the start of every month and in a few years I'll buy my family the dream house we always wanted but never thought we could afford.

And FYI my best selling series was rejected by just about every agent I know of, to include the agent I now have. I'm so happy they all rejected it because they don't get a cut of that very profitable pie.


----------



## AgnesWebb (Jan 13, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> He's right - I suck.
> 
> So, now that we have that out of the way, I wonder if he'd like to compare checking accounts?
> 
> ...


Ha! This is great. Enjoyed hearing you discuss all this 'suckage' on the RSP podcast the other day!


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Ahh, the bitter stench of obsolescence. 

I've noticed that people become extremely vocal when money's involved. Not their own money, mind, but other people's. You're welcome to write, just don't try to profit from it, because that's when folks have a problem with it. 

I can't help thinking that the world would be a much better place if everyone just stopped worrying about what others were doing with their money...


----------



## pjmartin (May 7, 2013)

Maybe it was stated before, but what really made me catch fire was that comment about readers. Before I was a writer, I was a reader; and for that matter, I continue to be one. And it really pisses me off when someone, whoever it may be, suggests that MY judgement is faulty.
THEY (NY, trad publishers, etc.) think that THEY are the only ones capable of deciding what is GOOD or BAD for me.

Is this 1984 thinking or what?

I believe in the freedom of the individual, first. And Indie publishing is the freest market there is. No big budget marketing, no bullsh*it. Readers decide what is good and what is bad, and that is how it should be, PERIOD.

Sorry, but it really pisses me off. I've read really good books written, edited, and published by indies; and they don't deserve that. I don't know if my writing is good enough, however I trust readers will tell me in due time.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Cherise Kelley said:


> So sad. Julie bashed me for calling this Stockholm Syndrome before, but I still think that's what it is. No, Mr Anthony J. Langford is not being tortured. His life is not in danger. Yet, he is wasting it. The big 5 have him that figuratively beaten down.


Of course it's Stockholm Syndrome. Or Uncle-Tom-Syndrome.

_On a side note:_ Yes, you can use Stockholm Syndrome in this situation. Yes, it can rain cats and dogs. Yes, you can bark a sentence.
You just need to know what is meant by figurative, metaphorical, tropical speech.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> So sad. ***** bashed me for calling this Stockholm Syndrome before, but I still think that's what it is. No, Mr Anthony J. Langford is not being tortured. His life is not in danger. Yet, he is wasting it. The big 5 have him that figuratively beaten down.


Um, pretty sure I've never "bashed" you. I do, however, think that people who adopt a *pro-indie/anti-trade* position all the time are just as bad as people who adopt a *pro-trade/anti-indie* position all the time. My position is, and always has been, that each author should make decisions based on their own skill sets, goals, and needs. And that indies who insist that there is a_ mental defect_ in authors who want to be trade published are just as bad as the nimwit who wrote the blog article. Not every author is cut out to self publish. Just like not everyone who works in the hotel industry actually wants to own a hotel and not everyone who works in a restaurant wants to own one. I am not about to tell a total stranger that he has a mental defect simply because he wants a different path than I do. Just like I pay no mind to idiots spewing nonsense online about the path I have chosen.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

ChrisWard said:


> I had a typewriter too. At fourteen I could only type with two fingers and the tips got so sore I made these cones out of tape and cotton to put over them.


I had a typewriter too (well, it was a family typewriter but they let me use it whenever I wanted). I was eight years old, typing on that Olivetti. I've been writing ever since.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

What bothers me about this industry insider rant in that article linked by the OP is that it perpetuates the name-calling on both sides. I'm hoping for the day when writers are called writers without the adjectives of "traditional" or "indie" or "self-published" in front of their names.

"I believe about 96% of those who have never tried the traditional market don't because they know they're going to get rejected. Their book is nothing but glorified fanfiction, and somehow they've decided that indie publishing is the way to go, and have the gall to ask hard-working human beings to pay them for that drivel." - http://anonnymouse13.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/why-indie-authors-still-suck/

Dastardly done, that.

The accusation that most SP writers who started out straight up SP without first being slapped around and spat out by TP at all are merely writing fanfiction is false. What about Howey, Lyons, Ward, etc? They all started out SP. It was the TP who came a-courting them. If their works are mostly "fanfic" why would TP offer them contracts?

Fact-checking, Mouse, fact-checking.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Personally when I get around to writing my novel, I will self-publish.  I can't see someone else making 50% off of me.  (Note figure is off the top of my head).  I will also use a pseudonym and publish it as fiction.  This is so any remsemblence to real people is a coincidence.  Heck I may even write two versions, a clean one and a muddy one.
Besides I really do think it will be rejected.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Personally when I get around to writing my novel, I will self-publish. I can't see someone else making 50% off of me. (Note figure is off the top of my head). I will also use a pseudonym and publish it as fiction. This is so any remsemblence to real people is a coincidence. Heck I may even write two versions, a clean one and a muddy one.
> Besides I really do think it will be rejected.


Apparently percentages are sometimes worse than 50%. For eBooks, some have blogged that they cap royalties at 25% but some authors are only getting 10% when all is said and done. If smaller TP or indie TP, then you could possibly negotiate 35-40% if you don't use an agent who gets 15% cut. If they sell the eBook for >$9.99 then Amazon only gives the TP 35%, and by the time you the author pay your agent, you'll get a few coins left for your hard work of writing the novel.

Here is an article regarding this and here are the numbers it cited:

"A Major Publisher Jumps the Shark" by Porter Anderson (June 22, 2013)
http://writerunboxed.com/2013/06/22/a-major-publisher-jumps-the-shark/

"Bottom line: in traditional publishing, an ebook gives the publisher more and the author less." - Porter Anderson

"Every time a hardcover sale is replaced by an ebook sale, the publisher makes $2.20 more per copy and the author makes $1.58 less." - Brian DeFiore

"DeFiore and Company founder Brian DeFiore shared the most important stats: a '$27.99 hardcover generates $5.67 profit to publisher and $4.20 royalty to author' and a '$14.99 agency priced ebook generates $7.87 profit to publisher and $2.62 royalty to author.'"

Some lit agents argue that TP is still the way to go because they sell more books and have a wider distribution. Someone blogged recently that mathematically, SP authors don't have to sell as many books as a TP authors to make the same amount of profit. And everything above breaking even is yours to keep!

The argument for SP is that the author is also the publisher. If the publisher is the one who makes all the profit (according to Porter's article), then the SP author has a higher margin of profitability because she is also the publisher! Bwahahahaha!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Um, pretty sure I've never "bashed" you. I do, however, think that people who adopt a *pro-indie/anti-trade* position all the time are just as bad as people who adopt a *pro-trade/anti-indie* position all the time. My position is, and always has been, that each author should make decisions based on their own skill sets, goals, and needs. And that indies who insist that there is a_ mental defect_ in authors who want to be trade published are just as bad as the nimwit who wrote the blog article. Not every author is cut out to self publish. Just like not everyone who works in the hotel industry actually wants to own a hotel and not everyone who works in a restaurant wants to own one. I am not about to tell a total stranger that he has a mental defect simply because he wants a different path than I do. Just like I pay no mind to idiots spewing nonsense online about the path I have chosen.


Fair point. What about this: If you had a friend or a bunch of friends who were publishing with a vanity press, would you shrug and say "Each author needs to find their own path?" Or would you feel morally obligated to point out that the outrageous sums your friends are paying won't make their book any better and won't give them an increased chance of selling more titles, and in fact that they are being ripped off by swindlers and cheats who pray on the desire of the unpublished to become the published?

I will argue two things:

1) We have a moral obligation to prevent friends and even strangers from making heinous mistakes, such as driving drunk, publishing with a vanity press, and wearing paisley.

2) Traditional publishing contracts, with their no-complete clauses, indefinite terms of copyright, paltry royalties, slow publication schedules, and the fact that the resultant book will have six months at most on dwindling store shelves puts those of us who know better in a position similar to (1).

I'm all for traditional publishing, but only if the contract is fair. And there aren't that many of those. But there would be more of them if we all demanded these contracts to shape up. If we refused to sign them unless there were finite terms of license, better pay, and zero non-compete and other restricting clauses. If not, we publish on our own. We wait for times to get better. We don't enable an abusive industry. (Yes, even though contracts are entered into willingly, the system is abusive. Just like vanity publishers).

What will hasten the beneficial evolution of publishing contracts are those of us publishing on our own, refusing to sign awful contracts, holding out for fair ones, and motivating our fellow writers to do the same. The people who defend all publication paths with a shrug enable those who take advantage of writers, plain and simple. I really believe this. Contracts are going to improve because of indie publishing, and all authors will benefit. Instead of bashing what will improve their lives, they could drop a thank you card in the internets now and then.

Eh, maybe that's just me. And for the record, I was saying this and acting on this before I had a lick of success. This isn't post-hoc reasoning. I had the religion before I ever tasted the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

I read some of it actually thinking it was supposed to be satirical before I realized that is one angry individual. Seems to be the Tap-Out gear version of the 19 year old intern who blogged gushingly of the Big 6.

This seems to be the battlefield we've all divided up... they're lashing out, angry, and becoming irrelevant. We're overly defensive and desperate for credibility. (These are VERY general terms, so take it for what it is.)

Self-publishing gave me a chance to get my work to the reader NOW. Not whenever the trade pub oligarchy decided I'd suffered enough or that the work could be shoehorned into a formulaic mold they already had been marketing to death. I've learned two things since then; my work does have an audience that connects to it and I have a lot of work to do to better myself as a writer.

Either way, while they make all the noise they can about how bad I (we) suck I will quietly keep honing my craft and putting my books in the hands of people who want them.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> The article was meh, but some of the comments were rather sad. Mr Anthony J. Langford wrote,
> 
> _For the most part I tend to agree. The net is awash with self published drivel, people who don't want to put in the hard yards and are deluded enough to think that what their sycophantic friends say warrants publication. I have seven novels written from '04 until now that I have hung onto because I believe that theyre worth it and I intend to keep working on them and keep submitting or die trying. Self publishing for me, would mean failure._
> 
> I think Anthony J. needs a hug.


Yes, all 25,000 of my sycophantic friends downloaded my book last June. 

Honestly, before I started self-publishing, I shared some of these people's opinions. It's pretty astounding to think how wrong I was, but at least I learned and took control of my career. And my terrible, awful, shitty book that was rejected by all of the historical fiction imprints because it wasn't worth reading has sold more than the average print run for a book in its genre, and has more ratings and higher averages than many similar traditionally published books. Oh, and I'll be quitting my day job early next year because I can now live off my writing income just fine. That would almost certainly not be true if I'd sold the book to a traditional publisher...average advance for that genre is about $10,000. I've earned much more than that since self-publishing.

Like Joe_Nobody says, it sure does pay well to suck!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

mariehallwrites said:


> Oh jeez, this kind of mentality drives me crazy. I'm a writer and I work in the industry and I for one am GLAD that Indie exists. I read so many mss that I know are amazing, but we literally cannot place them because NY has made acquiring those books almost impossible. I hate writing rejections and on those occasions when I've read a book that just blows my mind I have suggested Indie as a possibility. NY seems to believe they're the authority on books, well they're wrong. It's the reader. Period. NY doesn't want historical, they don't want Urban Fantasy or Paranormal Romance... guess what, the readers are still gobbling them up. So you tell me who's behind the times


THIS!!!!! All of this!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

> ...thrown it to the rabid, uncaring, undiscerning market of women clamoring for their next idiotic, pathetic female, and well-chiseled male...


He/she/it is a misogynistic jerk. Other than that, I couldn't manage to plow through the poorly written dreck to see if there was actually something there worth considering.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

_The general who is first tyrannical towards his men, and then in terror lest they should mutiny, shows a supreme lack of adequacy._

....

_He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them._

B.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> He/she/it is a misogynistic jerk. Other than that, I couldn't manage to plow through the poorly written dreck to see if there was actually something there worth considering.


Yes this. The rest is just standard shock insult tactics, but the misogyny of the whole piece with its jabs towards Twilight, vampire fiction in general, romance, 50 Shades of Grey and erotica in general pushed this one beyond the usual "indie authors suck" drivel.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

humblenations said:


> It's particularly well-written, incredibly honest and funny ...


Except it's not.

It's not particularly a quality of "well-written" to substitute volume (profanity) for substance (a cogent and truthful POV).

It's honest only to the extent that the blogger feels that way; his observations are not particularly true, and his points are weakly argued.

Funny: a subjective observation that is dependent upon each reader.

I'll give you 1 of 3 on those...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Yes this. The rest is just standard shock insult tactics, but the misogyny of the whole piece with its jabs towards Twilight, vampire fiction in general, romance, 50 Shades of Grey and erotica in general pushed this one beyond the usual "indie authors suck" drivel.


I'm glad you mentioned the misogyny of his post. I had meant to in my longish post on page 2 of this thread, but I had so many other points to make, it slipped by me.

Yes: the OP of the blog seems to have a particular ax to grind with women readers, women authors, and women in general, who, throughout his poorly-written, weakly argued post, he seems to equate with only negative characteristics.

From his post, I could only guess that his point is that women should 1) stop reading and 2) never write anything.

A point, I am sure, will be *so* well received in these environs.

(Note the use of irony... something the blogger in question, who hides behind his anonymity, has no clue about.)


----------



## Midnight Whimsy (Jun 25, 2013)

MegHarris said:


> I have an open mind. But I really doubt an article entitled "Why Indie Authors Still Suck" is going to improve my understanding on any issue. It's link bait, IMHO, and I'm with Julie-- I refuse to click on anything that appears to be written by someone who wants to get a lot of page hits by being "controversial" and "edgy." A well-written article that isn't clearly trying to antagonize people is an entirely different matter.


Fair point. A well-written, less profanity-laced article would have been more to my tastes. Although he did apply shock value with a certain amount of flair, overall it does seem to be trying too hard to be offensive.

M.W


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Hahah, that was the other thing, wasn't it? How terrible for all these women to be buying their silly women-books and propping up the entire industry.


----------



## jlmarten (May 9, 2012)

I loved this quote in the comments section below the article by ND.

_You need to get with the times Anonymous, and realize Indie's aren't going anywhere but unfortunately traditional publishing is - enjoy the layoff, karma is a bitch._

Beyond that, not much more I can add.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Hahah, that was the other thing, wasn't it? How terrible for all these women to be buying their silly women-books and propping up the entire industry.


Yes. We are awful. My husband keeps trying to get me to read Illusions by Richard Bach. I smile and hand it back every time. When is he going to learn I prefer to read those crappy romance novels that only serve to rot my brain?


----------



## AncientChild (Jun 25, 2013)

Deanna Chase said:


> Yes. We are awful. My husband keeps trying to get me to read Illusions by Richard Bach. I smile and hand it back every time. When is he going to learn I prefer to read those crappy romance novels that only serve to rot my brain?


If you really want to make him laugh, then shake his head in vain, then laugh, then pull his hair out all at the same time, get Bach's Bridge Across Forever http://www.amazon.com/The-Bridge-Across-Forever-Story/dp/0061148482
It's TOTALLY a love story.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

There's bad indie work out there. Thanks. We get it.

But the level (or depth) of his putrid, flaming vitriol levied against an entire segment of the writing population says a lot more about him than it does indies. I smell an unemployed editor or proofer due to Big5 downsizing or that he's been replaced by some Lit-MFA/Intern doing twice the work for half the money. Perhaps I'm too presumptous with that and he's only a mailroom boy who wants to be a big time Pub editor but knows he never will because so much of that world has already moved on.

And indies are all he has to lash out against. He obviously has more time on his hands than an in-demand editor would. The Patterson factory churns out a new one every 2 weeks. Busy, busy. Funny thing is, it will probably only be a matter of time before online indie freelance proofing is the only work he can get.

But we'll never know for sure because he doesn't have the guts to put his real name behind his comments, just some ridiculous attempt at toughness from an inflammatory screen name. Which, for me, puts him on the same shelf as every pimply faced 15 yr. old virgin out there flaming the world for kicks from mommy and daddy's computer.

I actually pity this person.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> Fair point. What about this: If you had a friend or a bunch of friends who were publishing with a vanity press, would you shrug and say "Each author needs to find their own path?"


There is a world of difference between "Why would you spend $10000 to self pub when I can show you how to do it for a tenth of that" versus "You are such an idiot gods what is wrong with you are you stupid?" There is a difference between saying "Before you sign a trade contract, make sure you..." and offering advice on potential pitfalls versus "OMG Don't be a moron what are you a victim of Stockholm Syndrome?" It isn't indifference. It's annoyance at the all-or-nothing position people on both sides take. On one side you have dingbats like the writer of the blog post who are willfully ignorant of the host of tools available to writers to self pub. On the other you have people who have adopted this militant position who consider even thinking about a trade deal some sort of betrayal. I just keep waiting for the day the indies develop enough self confidence to stop caring about what the dingbats say and take a balanced approach. The fact that this thread is as long as it is over something that should never have been given a second thought is the biggest problem indies have.

All opinions are not created equal. We don't need to engage in knee jerk defense of our honor just because some guy with internet access decides to engage in link bait. Maybe then folks would consider indie publishing a better option and not be scared off because our ranks seem to be filled with as much venom as the other side.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Deanna Chase said:


> Yes. We are awful. My husband keeps trying to get me to read Illusions by Richard Bach. I smile and hand it back every time. When is he going to learn I prefer to read those crappy romance novels that only serve to rot my brain?


Quit enjoying things and buy my fifth-generation Hemingway fanfic! It has trout!


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Quit enjoying things and buy my fifth-generation Hemingway fanfic! It has trout!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Fair point. What about this: If you had a friend or a bunch of friends who were publishing with a vanity press, would you shrug and say "Each author needs to find their own path?" Or would you feel morally obligated to point out that the outrageous sums your friends are paying won't make their book any better and won't give them an increased chance of selling more titles, and in fact that they are being ripped off by swindlers and cheats who pray on the desire of the unpublished to become the published?
> 
> I will argue two things:
> 
> ...


This, right here. So spot on.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> they're lashing out, angry, and becoming irrelevant.


Pigs squeal loudest before they die. (Or at least lose most of their power.)



> We're overly defensive and desperate for credibility.


Pigs are very vain creatures. At least they were in Animal Farm.


----------



## DocAggie (Jun 29, 2013)

I think my favorite part was this eloquent turn of phrase:
"it's in your contract *tiny mortal*, you do as we say!"

Yes, I'd absolutely love to subject myself to this kind of abuse. How any industry can survive by treating people in such a fashion is beyond me.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

I just had to rebut the misogyny in his post on my own blog - http://www.jbridgerwriting.blogspot.com/2013/08/misogyny-and-classicism-against-female.html


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

I want a trout now.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Every time a writer wastes time reading blog posts like that, a fairy dies.


----------



## Laura Kingsley (Jun 11, 2013)

D.L. Shutter said:


> There's bad indie work out there. Thanks. We get it.
> 
> But the level (or depth) of his putrid, flaming vitriol levied against an entire segment of the writing population says a lot more about him than it does indies. I smell an unemployed editor or proofer due to Big5 downsizing or that he's been replaced by some Lit-MFA/Intern doing twice the work for half the money. Perhaps I'm too presumptous with that and he's only a mailroom boy who wants to be a big time Pub editor but knows he never will because so much of that world has already moved on.
> 
> ...


Yes, pity them, please. There is some great stuff out there, in fact, I love working with indies who put themselves out there and write some really great stuff. It's sad, but don't give up, and don't believe this sad drivel. Believe in yourself and your story. Hopefully, you will be found...


----------



## Laura Kingsley (Jun 11, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Pigs squeal loudest before they die. (Or at least lose most of their power.)
> 
> Pigs are very vain creatures. At least they were in Animal Farm.


LOL, there was more truth in that than you said.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2013)

JeanneM said:


> Every time a writer wastes time reading blog posts like that, a fairy dies.


There's an alternate universe somewhere with a bookshelf / ereader device full of all the books you wrote with the time you wasted instead by reading these articles.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

It looks to me as if the "author" spent about twice as much time trolling tumblr looking for animated GIFs as he did writing the article.


----------



## Cory (Nov 6, 2012)

My guess is that a 19-year-old girl wrote this. The judgmental, holier-than-thou tone and the animated gifs sort of give it away.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

Doubt it was a girl. The misogyny in that rant and using a rape-based expression to shock told me that it's a man frankly.


----------



## Joseph Turkot (Nov 9, 2012)

I also had the feeling that this guy is losing job stability due to the indie market, and, in anger, he has raged against its negative aspects. His self-righteousness is appalling. It very well may be purposeful flame for page views. Or he just hates the monentum of the industry, an inexorable force over which he is powerless. May he find peace with himself!


----------



## Cory (Nov 6, 2012)

I think it's misogyny against her own sex--women's books are generally looked down on in society, and this person is riding the tide. But she wants to seem edgy at the same time by using extreme expressions to make her points.

Just a theory, I guess we'll never really know unless this person reveals their identity.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Cory said:


> My guess is that a 19-year-old girl wrote this. The judgmental, holier-than-thou tone and the animated gifs sort of give it away.





J Bridger said:


> Doubt it was a girl. The misogyny in that rant and using a rape-based expression to shock told me that it's a man frankly.





Cory said:


> I think it's misogyny against her own sex--women's books are generally looked down on in society, and this person is riding the tide. But she wants to seem edgy at the same time by using extreme expressions to make her points.
> 
> Just a theory, I guess we'll never really know unless this person reveals their identity.


I'm wondering about this myself. The silly animated gifs say "young woman", the extreme misogyny says "man". Of course, it might be a young woman who has internalized misogynist attitudes towards romance and erotica.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

If this is who I think it is, she is, in fact, not an editor at all (some people I know did some internet tracking down magic and found out her identity). So... why would anyone care anyway what this clearly angry person has to say?


----------



## NicoleSwan (Oct 2, 2011)

5 pages of comments in just a couple of hours... anyone think that energy could have been better spent writing a book to completely disprove the OP's blog?


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Doomed Muse said:


> If this is who I think it is, she is, in fact, not an editor at all (some people I know did some internet tracking down magic and found out her identity). So... why would anyone care anyway what this clearly angry person has to say?


I suppose a woman can also prefer khaki and smoke cigars. So maybe this blogger is a woman.

OTOH I think it's a man. And I think he edits something at the publishing house. Lots of clues in the FAQ.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

J Bridger said:


> I just had to rebut the misogyny in his post on my own blog - http://www.jbridgerwriting.blogspot.com/2013/08/misogyny-and-classicism-against-female.html


Well said. (Meaning your blog post.)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Fair point. What about this: If you had a friend or a bunch of friends who were publishing with a vanity press, would you shrug and say "Each author needs to find their own path?" Or would you feel morally obligated to point out that the outrageous sums your friends are paying won't make their book any better and won't give them an increased chance of selling more titles, and in fact that they are being ripped off by swindlers and cheats who pray on the desire of the unpublished to become the published?
> 
> I will argue two things:
> 
> ...


All of this.

Every time I post something about Authors Beware or Indie First, another writer (or three) leaves comments like, "Writer's Digest has a vanity press??" Friends don't let friends do vanity. And having the courage of your convictions is a powerful thing - the kind of thing that changes hearts and minds. Traditional publishers have had decades of power imbalance on their side to convince people that awful contracts are in writers' best interest. Indie publishing has had a couple of years, a legion of success stories that fly under the radar, and a couple heavy hitters like Hugh Howey and Belle Andre to give a different view. I think balancing out the weight of history with a clear-eyed view of what's best for authors is a service we do for our fellow writers. That's why I keep talking about it.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You'd think people would learn to stop feeding the trolls after a while. Stop giving them pageviews, they starve and die. But we just continue to post links and drive traffic to every random blog highlighting posts by "industry" people with questionable credentials who are just chumming the water looking for sharks. I'm less surprised by the blog post than I am the fact that we still feel the need to give them attention. (and no, I did not click on the link nor will I.)


Yep. I ain't clicking, either. No desire to do so.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

Quiss said:


> Anger management might be a good option for this person.
> Not sure if being anonymously rude is really the way to get anything accomplished unless the goal is just to vent. In that case, this person might just want to take their own advice and just make some notes on a napkin or something.


^^^Great reply. Agreed. Would you REALLY want to work with the writer of that article? I wouldn't. Too much negativity in the world without having to be associated with someone like that.


----------



## LinaG (Jun 18, 2012)

these are not the droids you're looking for. move along.

And Nathan, if you don't mind me saying... You kind of look like Alec/Obi Wan.

Obi Wan wise. Anon... hates women and burritos.

Is there any contest?

Lina "I click link bait no more" Gimble


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> 5 pages of comments in just a couple of hours... anyone think that energy could have been better spent writing


Nicole speaks wisely and I regret the time wasted on my post. 200 words I'll wish I had back on my deathbed. Thinks it best to move on and leave the despondent to their wallowing.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

While some see this kind of discussion as a waste of time. I see it as a nice break for writers. We all have our frustrations, and this attitude against the right for Indies to earn a good living is one of them. It's good to take a break, vent and then go back to writing. It's healthy, in fact.

I do wonder, however, if this person actually works for a vanity press. They must really be hurting for business.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Joseph Turkot said:


> Or he just hates the monentum of the industry, an inexorable force over which he is powerless.


This was my impression. I'm not going to knock him too hard for the gifs. I love a good gif rant. But he sure sounds powerless and pissed about it. Rar-rar-rar-rar! Working for a traditional publisher, I have the opportunity to rise to a position of power over other people, and to dictate the creation of culture, tiny mortals! Rar-rar-rar! Stop taking away all my potential future power! That means I'll have to flip burgers for a living and resign myself to the bottom of the totem pole! Rar!

Maybe instead of getting so angry about the changes in his chosen industry, he should write a few books and indie-publish them. He'd probably make more money, but not unless he hires an editor. I haven't seen so many misused apostrophes since the last time I drove past a seven-year-old's lemonade stand.


----------



## C.P.D.Harris (Dec 30, 2012)

Who has time to write a hateful rant like that.


----------



## Tony Bertauski (May 18, 2012)

The blog is deleted. If he/she was really a trad editor, maybe things got hot.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Actually, at this point, I think it'd be interesting to hear what his experience was from before he posted it until his decision to take it down.  Now that's a story.


----------



## Tony Bertauski (May 18, 2012)

Agreed. The blog didn't seem to care what others thought. I'm guessing there was strong advice given.


----------



## Buttonman88 (Apr 11, 2013)

Try getting the cached version of the deleted post here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r5yRBEb8jxUJ:anonnymouse13.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/why-indie-authors-still-suck/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

I'd paste the text in here but that's probably a violation of KB's ToS

Mike


----------



## Buttonman88 (Apr 11, 2013)

Try getting the cached version of the deleted post here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r5yRBEb8jxUJ:anonnymouse13.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/why-indie-authors-still-suck/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

I'd paste the text in here but that's probably a violation of KB's ToS

Mike


----------



## Martin OHearn (Feb 9, 2012)

How to write effective linkbait:

1. Write linkbait.

2. Don't delete the blog.


----------



## J Bridger (Jan 29, 2013)

Wonder why he deleted?


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

Deanna Chase said:


> Yes. We are awful. My husband keeps trying to get me to read Illusions by Richard Bach. I smile and hand it back every time. When is he going to learn I prefer to read those crappy romance novels that only serve to rot my brain?


I read that book when I was in high school. In all honesty, it wasn't the worst book I ever read. That honor belongs to Jonathan Livingston Seagull - also by Richard Bach. Illusions s a close second.


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

LinaG said:


> these are not the droids you're looking for. move along.
> 
> And Nathan, if you don't mind me saying... You kind of look like Alec/Obi Wan.
> 
> ...


My kids think I look more like Gandalf.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

Buttonman88 said:


> Try getting the cached version of the deleted post here:
> 
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r5yRBEb8jxUJ:anonnymouse13.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/why-indie-authors-still-suck/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie
> 
> ...


I skimmed it, and I actually agree with many of his points. Most Indie books are utter crap not worth the server space they're stored on.

Having said that, most Kindle Board authors are an exception... an island of relative sanity in the sea of crap. Lots to learn here.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Nathan Lowell said:


> My kids think I look more like Gandalf.


Oh, Nathan, good work!


----------



## Alex Jace (May 6, 2013)

Doomed Muse said:


> If this is who I think it is, she is, in fact, not an editor at all (some people I know did some internet tracking down magic and found out her identity). So... why would anyone care anyway what this clearly angry person has to say?


I'd be extremely surprised if this person has ever worked for a trade publisher in any capacity. She seems to be under the impression that the in-house staff at a trade publisher work on a royalty-share basis:



> Being indie published doesn't mean you're exempt from handling your book like a goddamn professional. In fact, it makes you _more_ responsible, because you don't have a lovely team of vodka-and-redbull soaked copy editors, content editors, book cover artists, and book formatters working their fingers to the bone because they're getting paid a percentage of your royalties, so the shit has to be good.


I'd bet that this person has only ever worked for a micropress.


----------



## Nathan Lowell (Dec 11, 2010)

jnfr said:


> Oh, Nathan, good work!


Fan art.

After i grew the beard, a fan thought I looked like Gandalf and posted that on my FB wall.

My kids laugh and laugh.


----------

