# Faux Elitism and the Threat to Self-Publishing



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

I've been involved in POD and digital publishing for almost eight years now.  I was selling digital books long before development of the Kindle even started.  I was selling POD books before it was considered cool to use POD.    

Early on, one of the big reasons people claimed they were self publishing was because the publishing "elite" were keeping them from offering their work unfiltered to the public.  Because everyone believed that if they could just get their work "out there" that the public would buy it.  There was this underlying notion, widely accepted by those that self-published and (IMHO) unethically encouraged by the POD companies that profited off of self-publishers, that all of the stuff about grammar and editing and format was just a ruse to keep down talented writers who had great stories to share.

If you write it, was the mantra, they will read.

Fast forward eight years later.  More people than ever are self-publishing, but actual sales volume hasn't improved all that much.  Eight years ago, the average self-published book sold around 50 copies.  Today, the median sales are around 200.  Not exactly burning a path to success.  Digital authors are seeing more sales volume, but they are also selling at much cheaper prices.  A thousand sales at 99 cents is about the same as 200 print sales at $15.99 in terms of net profit.  So it becomes six of one, half dozen of the other.

Self-publishing has exploded not because it is a path to success, but because it has become so ridiculously easy to do.  Anyone with internet access and a properly formatted Word document can call themselves a published author these days. Costs to POD producers and digital retailers have plummeted, making it profitable for places like Amazon to let 10,000 authors sell on the site.  Even if each author only sells ten copies, it is almost pure profit in such large numbers.  

I'm starting to notice a weird pattern developing in self-publisher behavior, though I guess it should not be completely unexpected.  It is the development of this sense of elitism amoung self-publishers.  At some point, having an internet connection and uploading a document has become an act of rebellion against a thousand years of publishing.  And it is one thing to direct that elitism at the publishing industry.  I mean, it is counter-productive to waste time thumbing your nose at traditional publishing methods, but there is little actual harm in it.  After all, the big publishing houses only care about self-publishing insofar as established authors they have already invested resources in decide to go it themselves.  They are not concerned with you and me, and if we want to make ourselves feel better by pretending we are somehow "sticking it to the man" oh well.  A lot of the time, it becomes the self-publishing equivelent of saying "Yeah, sure she is pretty, but she is probably a stupid slut."  

But now authors are directing their elitism at READERS, and this IS dangerous.  I noticed the venom dripping from some posts, for example, in the Smart Bitches Trashy Books thread.  Comments regarding the character of the readers and their intelligence.  Complete disregard for their complaints.  Jokes along the lines of "well, these are people who read Harlquin books and life them, so what do you expect?"

This is a dangerous mentality.  

I'm not saying you need to agree with every comment.  I'm not saying you need to change your entire perspective on your writing.  But when that many people express that much anxiety or anger at self-publishing, smart business people should question why.  Instead of snarky attacks on the character of the potential customer, wouldn't it be smarter to try to understand what is causing the animousity?  Understanding the root complaints can help you avoid them and produce a better product.  

You are free to write what you wish, but that freedom does not also mean you are entitled to a readership.  A readership is earned.  Some folks act as if anyone who doesn't buy indie books is an idiot, mean, cruel, inhuman, possibly unAmerican.  What does calling a large portion of the readership at a READERCENTRIC website stupid accomplish other than provide an ego boost?

Nobody who self-publishes is doing anything revolutionary or even particularly special.  Uploading a file and clicking the approve button does not make you better or worse than the readers on any given site.  It doesn't make you smarter.  It doesn't make you thinner.  It won't get you dates.  It only provides you with the opportunity to present your work to the world.  How the world reacts to your work will depend on how you present it and how you present yourself.  Ultimately, the goal (I assume) is for your work to be read.  But dismissing readers as too stupid to recognize your genius or too naive to see the...eh hem...tidal wave of change or whatever buzzwords are being used these days to sell POD services won't sell books.  Understanding what readers expect, and how to make them aware of your book, will.


----------



## Cate Rowan (Jun 11, 2010)

Nicely said. Anger doesn't help; patience does. And good maketing. 

I'm one of those SBTB blog readers. I love fantasy and I love romance. I don't have a favorite or "go-to" publisher. My loyalty is to good stories, wherever they appear. 

It will be harder for readers to find my own books because they're self-published. That's okay. I can't expect everyone else to change their minds about self-pub just because I've changed mine. It's going to take time (and experiences with quality self-pubbed books) for other people to be won over to "the cause."


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> Complete disregard for their complaints.


I for one completely disregard their complaints.

Want me to care what you think about my self-published book?

Buy it.

I don't really care one iota about the opinion of anybody else.

As far as I am concerned, this is just one more round of the "Wah! All self-published books suck!" game, and I quite honestly don't care. Yup, I suck. That's me. Telling me I suck yet again is not going to get me to change any aspect of my behavior.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> As far as I am concerned, this is just one more round of the "Wah! All self-published books suck!" game, and I quite honestly don't care. Yup, I suck. That's me. Telling me I suck yet again is not going to get me to change any aspect of my behavior.


*applauds*


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Go ahead and take a breath now


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

You can say what you want about the self-pub stigma: it's not fair, it's wrong, you don't care, etc. But you can't deny its existence. The reasons for its existence don't change the fact that it _does_ exist. It's there.

And for people who say they don't care, then why release a book in the first place?

I'm trying to keep myself in the game for the long haul. You can't do that by alienating readers and belittling their opinions. It's hard reading comments like those expressed in the SBTB survey, but it is what it is. Those people are entitled to their opinions just the same as I am.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I for one completely disregard their complaints.
> 
> Want me to care what you think about my self-published book?
> 
> ...


Case in point.

What have you done to convince me that your book is worth buying, other than tell me you don't care about anyone's opinion?

Because obviously, you must care, or why do you publish? Isn't a desire to be read in effect caring?

Or are you simply so brilliant that anyone foolish enough not to recognize it is beneath you?

Have you given consideration as to the reasons for the constant rounds of "Wah! Self-published books suck"?


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> You can say what you want about the self-pub stigma: it's not fair, it's wrong, you don't care, etc. But you can't deny its existence. The reasons for its existence don't change the fact that it _does_ exist. It's there.
> 
> And for people who say they don't care, then why release a book in the first place?


I care about the opinion of the people who buy the book.

If people are on a message board stating that they'll never buy a self-published book because they all suck, then they aren't my customer or even a potential customer. Right?


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> A thousand sales at 99 cents is about the same as 200 print sales at $15.99 in terms of net profit. So it becomes six of one, half dozen of the other.


I absolutely agree with you that disdain for readers is stupid and dangerous, and I have seen posts on some of the forums to the effect of - I don't care if you ever buy my book anyway - which sounds like an upset 2-year-old. Truly foolish behavior from an author. For some of us it is, however, the devil and the deep blue sea. You need to be on these forums in order to get known at all, and it's so hard to keep quiet sometimes. I have a sign on my computer - Shut up and sell books, but it only works some of the time.

I also wonder about the above quote from your post. While math for 1,000 sales at $.99 is as you say, what about 1,000 at $2.99? All of a sudden that puts you in the area of a first-time author advance. There sure seem to be a lot of us on KB seeing that 1,000 mark in the rearview mirror. Admittedly I've never checked to see how many of them are doing it at $.99 a copy, but I know I've never priced there.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> Or are you simply so brilliant that anyone foolish enough not to recognize it is beneath you?


Didn't you read the part where I admitted that I sucked?



> Have you given consideration as to the reasons for the constant rounds of "Wah! Self-published books suck"?


Yes, I have.

And despite the fact that you tried to qualify your statement by saying that you're not arguing that people have to change their entire perspective on writing, the implicit and tacit demand behind every one of these rants is "Stop publishing! You suck!" And I'm just saying "No." As long as people are buying, I will keep selling.

The SBTB commenters have to come up with a better reason for me to stop publishing than telling me that I suck.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I care about the opinion of the people who buy the book.
> 
> If people are on a message board stating that they'll never buy a self-published book because they all suck, then they aren't my customer or even a potential customer. Right?


If car businesses worked that way, there wouldn't be car commercials. If restaurants worked that way, there would never be specials on the menu. The point of any business (and make no mistake, writing is a business) is to attract _new_ customers and to grow. Without new customers, say, people who are swayed to Ford from Chevy, or to Red Lobster from Olive garden, you can't grow your customer (fan) base.

What happens to your business then? It stagnates, and ultimately, it fails.

I'd LOVE to see Chevy come up with a commercial that says people who refuse to drive Chevies because they have a low opinion of them are morons. How far do you think that would go? Nowhere. That's why you never see commercials like that. Instead, you see commercials where former Toyota drivers have switched to Chevy because the Chevy product somehow won them over. I guarantee you they didn't win that customer over by saying "I don't care about your opinion until you buy a Chevy."


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

tbrookside said:


> If people are on a message board stating that they'll never buy a self-published book because they all suck, then they aren't my customer or even a potential customer. Right?


I'm not sure. Every once in a while I think one of those people crosses the line, whether to just check something out so they can say they tried it and it was still horrible or because they got curious about a particular book or whatever. I've sure got a couple of reviews from people who said they didn't expect much and were happily surprised. I've had some sales of my romance in paperback, which because of the length is $11.99, a price I'm not happy about, so there are some people out there who are willing not just to try an indie book but to pay a pretty hefty price for the privilege. Better to assume all of them may someday come around than to assume none of them ever will.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Thanks you Bardsandsages.

While I don't agree with everything you say (or even a lot of what you say) the overall message of your post is important. There is WAY too much posturing that goes on in the discussion of publishing these days.

I've been thinking a lot about the issue of posturing. Part of it is where I disagree with some of your message - I feel that a certain level of posturing has, unfortunately, become a part of the traditional publishing system. It will take a long post to explain, but in summary: I think the evolutionary pressures of publishing and the slushpile has changed writing style - forced writers to not only be sophisticated - which is necessary for all - but to write in ways that _prove_ their sophistication at a glance, even if it is not good for the story.

That more or less forces us all to act and think like college kids, showing off our new found sophistication at every opportunity.

Unfortunately, that attitude has deeply infected the indie publishing world as well. It's like those guys over there are the prep school kids, and we're the goth kids. And we're all just posturing.

Meanwhile, the geeks and nerds, who don't care about sophistication are ignoring it all and just DOING.

Here's the thing, though -- I think it's best to BE a nerd and just geek out on accomplishing stuff. But I don't think it's bad to get into the goths vs. preppies discussions, because that's where we get a feel for what the paradigm is, and what it will be. It''s also necessary, sometimes, to posture as what you WANT to be in order to get mentally into that space. That's why immature kids do it. It's a part of the maturing process.

So it's good for people to do it a certain amount - but a part of that maturing process is to be called on it, and to then grow up.

Camille


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> I care about the opinion of the people who buy the book.
> 
> If people are on a message board stating that they'll never buy a self-published book because they all suck, then they aren't my customer or even a potential customer. Right?


I haven't bought your book yet, but your signature ad got my attention - and reading the blurb on Amazon has me interested. I hadn't noticed the book before but it's right up my alley. And, your



Spoiler



p*ssed off


 attitude has me wondering whether I should bother. So you only care about those who buy your books - but what about those of us who are willing to buy it? Do you care about our opinions?


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

People who believe all indie books are sub-par are potential readers. They are potential readers who need to be won over.

Many indie books need better proof-reading. 

However, I have to say that I actually am impressed with the quality of so many indie author's work! I'm currently reading both Daniel Arenson's Firefly Island, and Robert Duperre's The Fall - both in paperback, and they're great!

If the public finds out that this level of quality is out there, they will be won over.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

I have nothing to add to this thread except to say...holy cow, Noah mentioned me!!!!

*grins*


----------



## arshield (Nov 17, 2008)

I have read some indie books I loved.  I have read some indie books I hated.  Same with published books.  If you want me to read your book, what is most important is that you get someone I trust to read your books and tell me about it.  I need filters.  There are just too many good books out there for me to waste my time with something I am going to hate.  I read a lot, I am one of your good potential customers.  And I blog what I think.  That doesn't mean I don't get it wrong sometimes.  And that doesn't mean I want coddled.  It means if you have a good story then get that story out.  I have no problem paying for a good book.

And I can tell you it is not only indies that need to spend more time and effort editing.  Major books have errors too.  I am ok with a handful, but if you have a lot that is unacceptable.


----------



## Cate Rowan (Jun 11, 2010)

arshield, your comment about errors reminds me of this post I saw today: http://www.teleread.com/2010/09/09/will-ebooks-change-the-length-of-novels-and-penguin-doesnt-care-about-typos/


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

robertduperre said:


> I have nothing to add to this thread except to say...holy cow, Noah mentioned me!!!!
> 
> *grins*


Mentioned you!?!? I read 124 pages of your book, so far, today!!!! )


----------



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

David McAfee said:


> ...and make no mistake, writing is a business...


I agree with everything you say except for this point. Writing does not necessarily need to be business. If you want to earn a living from writing, then you need to treat it as a business. But different people have different motivations, and some people may just enjoy putting their random musings out there in the belief that someone else may read them and enjoy them.

Personally, I cannot see myself making a living from my fiction writing- it's a very crowded market that is in a state of flux. Many published authors don't make a decent living from their writings (Chris Tsialkos, long listed for the Booker this year, works part time in a veterinary practice) But I do get a buzz when someone buys something I have written. I'm not after money. It's notoriety I crave


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

I clicked onto this thread right after reading the SBTB self-publishing discussion thread and couldn't agree more that indie authors should _definitely_ care what readers think of self-published books. Dismissing "Harlequin readers" (or any type of reader) as being "stupid" because they have a negative opinion of self-published books is a pretty useless reaction--and it's ignoring some important realities. Obviously, the readership of SBTB is exactly the kind of audience self-published romance writers should be courting. Dismissing readers of romance (the most popular genre out there, period) as idiots is offensive in the first place, and it also fails to recognize that you're talking about a lot, a lot, a lot of book-buying readers. So their opinion matters. And honestly, I think if you surveyed readers among many other genres--mystery/suspense, horror, sci-fi, fantasy, historicals, etc.-- you'd probably find a lot of the same attitudes and perceptions regarding self-published work.

Having read the comments on that SBTB post, I definitely think that some of those people generalize to an astounding degree, and there were no doubt some very unfair statements (such as that every single self-published book is poorly edited). But to ignore that these attitudes and perceptions exist--and are based in reality to a certain degree--does nobody any good. Look, I don't think any author on these forums wants to believe that their work is amongst the "not ready for prime time" self-published books currently flooding Amazon. Many of us are dead serious about this business (and it IS a business) and work hard to put out the best product possible. Part of that is understanding the market. Plenty of businesses pay good money to hold focus groups that may very well tell them that their product inspires negative reactions. They do that because they care..because they HAVE to care, if they want to change those perceptions.

The comment upthread about how you won't see a Chevy commerical that says that people who have negative opinions about Chevys are idiots made me laugh, but it's dead-on accurate. Authors, _especially_ indie authors, need to look at publishing and selling books as a business venture. No business can succeed if it doesn't care about its customers. A business that ignores public perception of its product, the brand, and the industry in general just isn't going to excel. People who already want to buy what you're selling are terrific, but real growth and success comes from winning new customers. Writing off people who don't think they want your product is short-sighted and self-defeating. A better strategy is to find out what they value, make sure you're providing it, then win them over to the point of view that your product delivers.

Are those comments on SBTB entirely fair? Of course not. Some of them are downright hurtful. But do they point to a general perception that self-published authors would be smart to keep in mind? Absolutely. Not every self-published book is poorly edited, but many are. And readers notice. And they care. Honestly, I found a lot of the comments in that thread interesting, whether I agreed with them or not. It's important to realize that your average reader does care about editing, tightly-focused plots, and honesty on the part of indie authors that their work is, in fact, self-published. I also found it interesting that certain people mentioned disliking that indie authors flood the forums with self-promotion. It makes me wonder if that type of promotion might hurt more than it helps. These are all things to keep in mind when producing and marketing your work.

It's a mistake to write off people who say they would "never" purchase a self-published book. If that person is a reader and the book you write interests them, and has (realistic, not all 5-star) favorable reviews, and looks professionally done, and has a tightly-written, well-edited sample available, AND costs half as much as your typical traditionally published ebook, I don't believe for a second that they wouldn't make an exception and buy it. Ebooks are still a relatively new animal, but vanity presses and POD have been around forever, and many of these people have had legitimately bad experiences with self-published work. Many of them likely paid $15+ for a poorly-edited, ill-conceived book. You can't blame them for being wary about taking another chance. But "never" is a strong word. If, as a self-published author, you can be objective about your work and, yes, _care_ about what potential readers think, you can surely produce and market something in a way that can change their mind.

Personally, if and when I self-publish, I'm definitely going to keep my finger on the pulse of how readers feel. Knowledge is power. These are the people who buy books. What they think matters. If it didn't, why publish at all?

*ETA:* In deference to the post directly above this one, I should make clear that I'm talking about authors who are publishing with the goal of selling books and, ideally, earning some money. Even if your motivation isn't money, I suspect most authors still want to sell as many books as possible (for notoriety's sake). However, this is obviously not the case 100% of the time. So please understand that when I talk about publishing as a business, that's the POV I'm coming from...as an author who hopes to supplement her income and perhaps one day even get to quit her day job. It's a big dream, but I'm realistic about it at least.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> If car businesses worked that way, there wouldn't be car commercials. If restaurants worked that way, there would never be specials on the menu. The point of any business (and make no mistake, writing is a business) is to attract _new_ customers and to grow. Without new customers, say, people who are swayed to Ford from Chevy, or to Red Lobster from Olive garden, you can't grow your customer (fan) base.
> 
> What happens to your business then? It stagnates, and ultimately, it fails.
> 
> I'd LOVE to see Chevy come up with a commercial that says people who refuse to drive Chevies because they have a low opinion of them are morons. How far do you think that would go? Nowhere. That's why you never see commercials like that. Instead, you see commercials where former Toyota drivers have switched to Chevy because the Chevy product somehow won them over. I guarantee you they didn't win that customer over by saying "I don't care about your opinion until you buy a Chevy."


David, I've done a lot of sales in my life.

I had my first telemarketing job when I was still in college. I've owned businesses and had customers.

And you know what? Even though everyone says that the customer is always right, the best position to be in as a salesman or as a business owner is to have a broad enough base of customers that it doesn't matter if you lose one or two. For your own sanity, you need to be able to tell any _one_ customer to blank off if that becomes required.

Would I run an ad telling people that I don't care about their opinion? No. And I didn't go over to their board to comment, either. But if someone comes running up to me to tell me I suck, I'm going to give them the brush off. Life is too short.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> I haven't bought your book yet, but your signature ad got my attention - and reading the blurb on Amazon has me interested. I hadn't noticed the book before but it's right up my alley. And, your
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I look at it this way:

A certain number of people are going to visit my product pages and download those samples. Some of those people will buy, some of them won't. I am not going to tear my hair out over the people who don't.

If you read the book, or even the sample, and tell me, "You suck and here's why," I'd be happy to engage you on it. If before you read the book or the sample you run up and tell me, "I know in advance that you suck because you're self-published!" what do you want me to say?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I, at the very least, skim all of the threads this entire forum daily. Many many months ago, when we had very few author members, I recall they were very friendly, and very wary of stepping on anyone's toes. Now we are adding dozens daily, and the tone has definitely changed. Up until a few months ago I was very partial to picking up independent titles Now that so many authors are posting in a way that I - personally - find overbearing, I am very reluctant to pick up any more independent titles.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

For one that is always saying Indie Publishing is not a 'threat' to Traditional Publishing, I find it amusing that you're somehow saying that a few indie authors snapping back at angry posters demonizing all indie works is somehow a 'Threat to Self-Publishing.' 

Oh, and real quick...



> Self-publishing has exploded not because it is a path to success, but because it has become so ridiculously easy to do.


I'd argue Konrath telling every possible writing site in existence that he's going to clear $100k this year has helped a ton in this. And I'd hardly argue it is easier to do is the reason. Createspace/Lulu haven't magically changed recently. Self-publishing is going to explode because there's shmoes like me who are paying their bills with their book sales.

David Dalglish


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> I, at the very least, skim all of the threads this entire forum daily. Many many months ago, when we had very few author members, I recall they were very friendly, and very wary of stepping on anyone's toes. Now we are adding dozens daily, and the tone has definitely changed. Up until a few months ago I was very partial to picking up independent titles Now that so many authors are posting in a way that I - personally - find overbearing, I am very reluctant to pick up any more independent titles.


That's interesting. I'm just curious what authors are doing that you've found to be a turn-off? What sort of overbearing? We've probably got at least 100 flavors, right?


----------



## Cate Rowan (Jun 11, 2010)

> I, at the very least, skim all of the threads this entire forum daily. Many many months ago, when we had very few author members, I recall they were very friendly, and very wary of stepping on anyone's toes. Now we are adding dozens daily, and the tone has definitely changed. Up until a few months ago I was very partial to picking up independent titles Now that so many authors are posting in a way that I - personally - find overbearing, I am very reluctant to pick up any more independent titles


pidgeon92, reading that makes me sad for the board. I'm a newbie here myself, so I can't comment on a history here. If there's obnoxiousness, I can see why you'd be taken aback.

Despite that, I can only ask that you try not to assume every indie author is the same. As one particular human being, an author has no control over what other authors say or do here or elsewhere--we can only control ourselves. (Or not.)

(I suppose that's one of the "independent" parts of indie.)

So buy as you see fit, of course--but I'll politely request that you don't stop trying all indie authors just because some have annoyed you.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> That's interesting. I'm just curious what authors are doing that you've found to be a turn-off? What sort of overbearing? We've probably got at least 100 flavors, right?


As a moderator, it would be inappropriate for me to be specific. However, it's like anything else.... a few bad politicians sour you on a political party... a few bad preachers can turn you away from a religion. There are a lot of good self-pubbed works out there, but unless I read a really good recommendation by neutral source, I'm not even sampling anymore.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> It doesn't make you thinner. It won't get you dates.


I'm just waiting to hear someone say, "Oh, I met my spouse while marketing my book!" or something to that effect.

In all seriousness, though, I can see the reasoning behind your words, and I agree. The way that I look at reading is the same way that I view wine: people call tell you what qualifies as "high class," but in the end, in comes down to whether or not you enjoy it, right?

I think that there can be a lot of ego in the writing process, and the natural human reaction is to get defensive. Then you hope that you're self-aware enough to realize what's going on and try to take the feedback in a constructive light. It's like high school: you can rail on the teacher's "incompetence" or ask how you can avoid getting another D.

Incidentally, writing does make me thinner. It keeps me from snacking out of boredom


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> A certain number of people are going to visit my product pages and download those samples. Some of those people will buy, some of them won't. I am not going to tear my hair out over the people who don't.
> 
> If you read the book, or even the sample, and tell me, "You suck and here's why," I'd be happy to engage you on it. If before you read the book or the sample you run up and tell me, "I know in advance that you suck because you're self-published!" what do you want me to say?


On the other hand, you did what you said you wouldn't do - advertised that people how don't read you but have opinions on ebooks suck.

I've read wonderful indie books (as an example, David Burton's _Second Coming_) I've also read or started reading quite a few that were pretty bad. I haven't read yours - nor have I read a sample. All I know about your book is your signature ad, the Amazon blurb and then your comments here.

I cull authors rather hard - both indie authors and traditionally published authors - when I don't know anything about them or their writing. A recommendation from someone I trust is a way in. And, seeing authors participate here on kb is a way in, too. Sometimes, I just randomly buy books that intrigue me without recommendations. Knowing nothing about you or your books, what incentive do I have to not go past your book on my way to an author I haven't found overbearing?

Maybe I'm a throw-away potential customer. But, what about the other throw-away customers who also lurk in the writer's cafe?


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Meanwhile, the geeks and nerds, who don't care about sophistication are ignoring it all and just DOING.
> 
> Here's the thing, though -- I think it's best to BE a nerd and just geek out on accomplishing stuff.


Yep, as a girl gamer, I am totally a geek


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> For one that is always saying Indie Publishing is not a 'threat' to Traditional Publishing, I find it amusing that you're somehow saying that a few indie authors snapping back at angry posters demonizing all indie works is somehow a 'Threat to Self-Publishing.'


Not sure why you find it amusing. The Romance genre embraced digital books years before the Kindle. These readers are loyal buyers of digital products. So yes, when you see threads like the one at SBTB and have authors attacking those readers and alienating one of the most loyal groups of digital book purchases, it does hurt self-publishing because if you are alienating the hardcore loyalist, you are also loosing the casual buyers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I'd argue Konrath telling every possible writing site in existence that he's going to clear $100k this year has helped a ton in this. And I'd hardly argue it is easier to do is the reason. Createspace/Lulu haven't magically changed recently. Self-publishing is going to explode because there's shmoes like me who are paying their bills with their book sales.
> 
> David Dalglish


Konrath didn't start as a self-publisher so he is hardly the norm. We all know he cut his teeth doing the traditional circuit, so to speak, then decided to go indie using what he learned along the way. Konrath is like a doctor who goes to school for eight years, then opens up a private practice. He earned his degree.

Now everyone would love to earn the same money as a doctor, but few people are willing to put in the time. Self-publishing isn't new. The only difference is ten or twenty years ago, it took $5,000 to have the books printed and there was no Amazon automatically loading your book for you. You went door to door selling the books out the back of your car. THAT is why so few people did it. There were a few people who made money selling their self-pub books twenty years ago, too.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> On the other hand, you did what you said you wouldn't do - advertised that people how don't read you but have opinions on ebooks suck.


No, I didn't.

I said that I'm happy to admit to all the people who scream that all self-publishers suck that I do, in fact, suck. Like a vacuum cleaner.

I'd like someone to explain to me what's overbearing about that.

If anything, it's underbearing. [Yes I realize that's not actually a word.] I'm happy to accept the criticism of everyone out there who hates self-publishers and tell them they're absolutely right.

What I'm not going to do is not offer books for sale, or apologize to them. And that's what they actually want. I'd rather just say that we agree - I suck. But that I'm going to keep right on selling.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> Not sure why you find it amusing. The Romance genre embraced digital books years before the Kindle. These readers are loyal buyers of digital products. So yes, when you see threads like the one at SBTB and have authors attacking those readers and alienating one of the most loyal groups of digital book purchases, it does hurt self-publishing because if you are alienating the hardcore loyalist, you are also loosing the casual buyers.


There is absolutely nothing you, I, or anyone here can do to fix it so that all self-published books will magically be edited to the satisfaction of the posters on that board and raised to a quality level that all readers everywhere will like. So it's kind of a moot point.

As you note, they're already alienated. By books I didn't write and posters who weren't me. So what's next?

People in this thread have said, "You need to be aware of the self-publishing stigma." OK. I'm aware of it. Now what?

As far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this is to find a way to make sure these people never read a self-published book they don't like. I'm certainly open to suggestions on how we go about doing that.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Let's turn the tables then, Bards. Let's say I found a website where a _traditional_ author basically called his reading fanbase a bunch of illiterate morons who'll buy anything he writes. I link it here and title it "Joe Schmoe is a Threat to Traditional Publishing". Safe to say we'd have a bunch of people posting about how this is another sign that the traditional publishing model is dying, authors (or the companies themselves) are disrespecting their reader-base, etc.

What do you think your response would be, Bards? You think it'd be to agree? Or would you say that one author is hurting his own brand, nothing more? That the online readership of a single site is only a tiny percentage of the overall reading world? That those who put out a professional image and maintain it will weather the storm? That everyone here is reading too much into it and too eager to hop onto the bandwagon?

You say self-publishing has been around for years, and is now exploding. Some stupid flamewar on a single website is not going to be even the SLIGHTEST threat to self-publishing. In other words, I'm picking fun at your overblown title.

Oh, and it doesn't -matter- that Konrath has all that history. What I'm saying is people see massive amounts of money and get dollar signs in their eyes. For the longest of time, if you looked at the self-publishing industry, you were inundated with horror and sob stories, professionals telling you it was a career ender, and warning after warning that it'd cost you thousands of dollars. Suddenly the winds have shifted, and even professionals and midlisters are starting to see there's possibilities in self-publishing. That's the Konrath effect. It's gone from death and heartache to a place of potential, no matter how small.

David Dalglish


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> No, I didn't.
> 
> I said that I'm happy to admit to all the people who scream that all self-publishers suck that I do, in fact, suck. Like a vacuum cleaner.
> 
> I'd like someone to explain to me what's overbearing about that.


Arrogant statements about your suckage is pretty overbearing. What I'm trying to say, that you're trying hard not to notice, is that your post on this thread is the first time I've noticed you or your book. Even though I found your book interesting, I also found your statement arrogant and demeaning to readers - of which I'm one. Your telling me that you're not overbearing and asking for an explanation about how you could possibly be overbearing does nothing to change my initial opinion.

You just keep on selling. I stand by my opinion and my statements.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Brendan Carroll said:


> Why are Indie Authors all lumped together and judged as a group? Isn't this just another form of prejudism akin to racism? If you say out of hand: I'll never sample again because SOME authors are 'bad preachers', then you automatically preclude the possibility of any hard-working, honest Indie author ever making your TBR list again. I don't understand the attitude that it is perfectly fine for one group of people to discredit and demean another group, but unacceptable for the demeaned group to speak up.


Just my opinion: Judging people based on the group they belong to is what humans do.

As for the rest, I personally don't sample books. I've done it a few times and never got enough sample to get more than a page or two of the first chapter or the prelude so I stopped sampling. Instead, I go on recommendations (which is why I've read you, BTW) as well as reviews and blogs. Word of mouth is great tool.

I don't randomly pick up as many indie authors as traditional offers and buy them blind simply because I've been burned more often that way.


----------



## Gordon Ryan (Aug 20, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> Many many months ago, when we had very few author members, I recall they were very friendly, and very wary of stepping on anyone's toes. Now we are adding dozens daily, and the tone has definitely changed.


I find myself in complete agreement with Pigeon92 on this topic. Prior to discovering KB, I frequented several other threads where the resident "experts" voiced their disdain for anything outside their personal realm of opinion. Coming here to KB, I found a group of highly professional authors, in attitude and assistance, if not all in quality of product. We will never resolve the age old issue of what constitutes quality. Back when I was publishing through a traditional publisher, the argument centered around the same elitist criterion: what constitutes a good literary product? Tom Clancy's million sales were disdained as not being worthy of publication because it did nothing to uplift society. Ditto for several other commercially successful authors.

I posit that we will find the same argument in this new indie world. There are poor books from traditional publishers, and poor books from indies. But statistically speaking, the percentage will be much higher for poor books in the indie market. The use of "all indie" books are this or that, is without merit. I suppose when all other arguments fail, those opposed to indie publishing will resort to the current final card: anyone not buying indie books is racist.

How about we revert to trying to present ourselves as polite, if not agreeable, residents of this forum. I like it here. I see no reason to condemn any other author, regardless how well I like their work, or how limited I think their product might be. The basic premise I use, "if I cannot give a book at least three stars I won't rate it at all," is just a self-defence mechanism to assure the avoidance of unneeded criticism.

Remember all the American Idol auditions where the rejected person exits the building spewing epitaths against those fools who nothing about good music? We don't want to be that person, do we?

Gordon Ryan


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> Arrogant statements about your suckage is pretty overbearing. What I'm trying to say, that you're trying hard not to notice, is that your post on this thread is the first time I've noticed you or your book. Even though I found your book interesting, I also found your statement arrogant and demeaning to readers - of which I'm one. Your telling me that you're not overbearing and asking for an explanation about how you could possibly be overbearing does nothing to change my initial opinion.
> 
> You just keep on selling. I stand by my opinion and my statements.


It's arrogant to say that you suck?

I guess I just don't understand you.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> How about we revert to trying to present ourselves as polite, if not agreeable, residents of this forum.


Bardsandsages posted a lengthy post and offered it for discussion.

To discuss it with him, we've got to take the chance of not agreeing with him.

Lee Goldberg also will on occasion make interesting, informative, but provocative posts. In order to engage him on those posts in a worthwhile fashion, we've also got to take the chance of not agreeing with him.

For this board, this has actually been a highly contentious thread - but I still don't think anyone's been _impolite_.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> To discuss it with him, we've got to take the chance of not agreeing with him.


Pssssst: I could be wrong, but I think "his" name is Julie.  Just sayin'.



pidgeon92 said:


> I, at the very least, skim all of the threads this entire forum daily. Many many months ago, when we had very few author members, I recall they were very friendly, and very wary of stepping on anyone's toes. Now we are adding dozens daily, and the tone has definitely changed. Up until a few months ago I was very partial to picking up independent titles Now that so many authors are posting in a way that I - personally - find overbearing, I am very reluctant to pick up any more independent titles.


Ah, crud. That wouldn't include ridiculous, silly threads with ever changing names, would it?


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> I guess I just don't understand you.


Exactly. By the time I got to the part where you said you suck, I'd already made up my mind that you were being arrogant and the statements of suckage was just so much sarcasm - and in that context, your protestations are somewhat less than genuine to my eyes.

Take my comments constructively if you like, or ignore me as just another non-buyer having an opinion. Just trying to point out how you're coming across to at least this corner of your potential customer base.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Pssssst: I could be wrong, but I think "his" name is Julie.  Just sayin'.


Oops. All this time I've always thought Bards was male.


----------



## Gordon Ryan (Aug 20, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> For this board, this has actually been a highly contentious thread - but I still don't think anyone's been _impolite_.





tbrookside said:


> Oops. All this time I've always thought Bards was male.


T, just because rebuttal in couched in three or four syllable words, instead of a street corner single syllable utterance, doesn't mean it's polite. We're scurrying around the one-upmanship here today. And if you had known "he" was a "she" would that have made a difference?

Gordon Ryan


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> Exactly. By the time I got to the part where you said you suck, I'd already made up my mind that you were being arrogant and the statements of suckage was just so much sarcasm - and in that context, your protestations are somewhat less than genuine to my eyes.


It's actually not. Not in the sense I think you assumed.

The internet is full of people declaring that anyone not working within the traditional publishing system sucks. This is supposed to be devastating and withering criticism that will instantly make those at which it's directed run home crying and pull their books down from the DTP platform.

One way to defeat that is simply to own it. And now I do. It started out just as a rhetorical device, but I suppose it's moved beyond that now.

I can see how this might come across as _flippant_ - how can anyone not care if they suck or not? If it's annoyed you and now you're not buying my book - well, I guess I have to accept that as a possibility whenever I post anything anywhere that isn't promotional boilerplate.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Oh, nice tackle.... oh, sorry. Wrong thread.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Novelist said:


> T, just because rebuttal in couched in three or four syllable words, instead of a street corner single syllable utterance, doesn't mean it's polite. We're scurrying around the one-upmanship here today. And if you had known "he" was a "she" would that have made a difference?
> 
> Gordon Ryan


No. I was merely apologizing for using the wrong pronoun, and for not picking up on her real name even though we've both been on this board for a while now. I wouldn't argue an issue in a different manner with a woman than I would with a man, outside of a fairly narrow range of topics.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> It's actually not. Not in the sense I think you assumed.
> 
> I can see how this might come across as _flippant_ - how can anyone not care if they suck or not? If it's annoyed you and now you're not buying my book - well, I guess I have to accept that as a possibility whenever I post anything anywhere that isn't promotional boilerplate.


Yes, you're right. I read your post wrong and should have understood you only meant the other readers and not me. And I should have recognized that you were being flip and not sarcasm - because the two have nothing in common.

There. you win.

But, then you completely missed my point while you were busy being right.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

*yawns*


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> *yawns*


Whodathunk a thread titled "Faux Elitism" would turn out like this?


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> Yes, you're right. I read your post wrong and should have understood you only meant the other readers and not me. And I should have recognized that you were being flip and not sarcasm - because the two have nothing in common.
> 
> There. you win.
> 
> But, then you completely missed my point while you were busy being right.


I'm sorry, I still think I did.

I just went back and read your original post, and your posts since then. I said I didn't care about the opinions of people who have decided in advance that they won't read my book because it's self-published, and only cared about the opinions of people who bought and read my book - and this offended you, because from your perspective you indicated that you believed this included you in the group whose opinions didn't matter to me. I tried to respond to you, and it escalated from there.

Your point may have just been a basic blanket warning to always be nice because potential readers are reading all posts - and if that's the case, well, sure. OK. That's a fair point, and one I've violated today. But sometimes I want to talk about the issues involved and tell people what I think. That doesn't always dovetail perfectly with being ingratiating to potential customers, so there's obviously a downside to it as a result.

It's the internet. If I didn't want to be right, I wouldn't be on it. I'd be finishing _The Poison King_ before I get interlibrary fines instead.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> Your point may have just been a basic blanket warning to always be nice because potential readers are reading all posts - and if that's the case, well, sure. OK. That's a fair point, and one I've violated today. But sometimes I want to talk about the issues involved and tell people what I think. That doesn't always dovetail perfectly with being ingratiating to potential customers, so there's obviously a downside to it as a result.


No, you didn't get it. I don't care if you're nice. I don't know you. I'm just saying that coming across as an elitist (and let me ad a bit of a bully in your later posts) is a turn off to some people who comprise your potential customer base.

Be direct. Be honest about your opinions. But maybe, just maybe, it comes across grating.


----------



## Chris J. Randolph (Jul 1, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> No, you didn't get it. I don't care if you're nice. I don't know you. I'm just saying that coming across as an elitist (and let me ad a bit of a bully in your later posts) is a turn off to some people who comprise your potential customer base.
> 
> Be direct. Be honest about your opinions. But maybe, just maybe, it comes across grating.


I apologize, but I really don't see any of that at all in his posts here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like this has all been a terrible misunderstanding.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Tbrookside:

I had a similar reaction to your first post in this thread. Let's see if I can explain it better:

You started by saying something like "I completely disregard their complaints." And then you went on to say something about not changing your behavior.

It really wasn't clear which complaints and what behavior you were talking about, but given that the big point of the first post was writers who behave in a snide and borish way... it made it _sound_ like you were defending the act of being snide.

When you say something like that, and you've got that "screw 'em" tone, it is off-putting to people who may otherwise be interested in your work. It's not evil to say it. It's not unreasonable to say it. But given the ease of misinterpreting it, it can be self-defeating.

You're right, you should not care what a bunch of strangers think about self-published fiction. (I think that was bardsandsages' point - and maybe you were agreeing with her, even though it sounded like you weren't). They are no different than people who have a prejudice against your genre. They haven't read your work, they haven't mentioned your work by name, so their opinion doesn't matter.

So you should indeed disregard such complaints and _not respond_. You may have been agreeing with that idea, but it sounded like you were saying "I'll respond if I want to."

IMHO, writers should care what people who read their postings and responses think. That is a legitimate thing to judge you on. You may decide to go ahead and say it, but you should at least care about the reaction. How you respond to someone you disagree with will cause neutral parties to judge you.

On the one hand, I don't think it hurts an author to be a little controversial and opinionated. On the other hand, when people react negatively to you, it doesn't hurt to double-check and make sure they understood what you meant. Such people may very well be _your_ readers.

Camille


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Thank you, Camille.  That's pretty much what I meant - just said much more eloquently.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

I need to start reading Camille's blog. She constantly makes too much sense.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> No, you didn't get it. I don't care if you're nice. I don't know you. I'm just saying that coming across as an elitist (and let me ad a bit of a bully in your later posts) is a turn off to some people who comprise your potential customer base.
> 
> Be direct. Be honest about your opinions. But maybe, just maybe, it comes across grating.


OK. You're right, of course. In the heat of discussion it can be easy to not hear yourself. I still think the elitism element was just us misunderstanding each other, but the bully bit - yeah, I can definitely see some of that.

Especially because I spend half my day on, shall we say, more confrontational boards, and the other half on books. I imagine that sometimes I think I've dialed it back all the way when I've actually only come back 2/3rd's.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Well, I just wish I had explained myself more clearly before we both got our backs up .....

Peace.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> I need to start reading Camille's blog. She constantly makes too much sense.


It's all just a secret plot to get people to read my blog.

Camille


----------



## Gordon Ryan (Aug 20, 2010)

I think we've reached the point where my wife says women will smile, tuck it away for a later day and then get even, whereas men will just go have lunch and talk about football.  Are we there yet?

Well done, guys, with the "yeah, maybe I was a bit harsh" admissions.

BardsandSages, have you enjoyed the Donnybrook?  

Gordon Ryan


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> Oops. All this time I've always thought Bards was male.


You know, I get that a lot. Must be my forceful personality. 

Or the fact that I hate sparkling vampires...


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Seems to me that was the intention of the original post.


My intention was to get people to think about how they interact with the public. Any wrestling that occured in the process was a bonus


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Let's turn the tables then, Bards. Let's say I found a website where a _traditional_ author basically called his reading fanbase a bunch of illiterate morons who'll buy anything he writes. I link it here and title it "Joe Schmoe is a Threat to Traditional Publishing". Safe to say we'd have a bunch of people posting about how this is another sign that the traditional publishing model is dying, authors (or the companies themselves) are disrespecting their reader-base, etc.


Consider this:
That wacko in Florida with his tiny church of 50 members decides to burn the Koran, people fall over themselves to make it clear he does not represent all of Christianity.

A Muslim burns the American flag, ALL MUSLIMS become terrorists to 40% of the population.

So no, a traditionally published author does something stupid, the general population doesn't bat an eyelash. Because people latch on to what supports their view of the world. Once the stereotype becomes entrenched, anything supports it.

My point is that by attacking readers, you only reinforce the stereotype. And by reinforcing the stereotype, more people come to believe it. Ultimately, what I am talking about is public relations, a lost art among self-publishers. Good PR, engaging the readers positively and acknowledging their concerns and considering the root reasons for their behavior, negates the stereotype.

I mentioned this in the other thread, but I have people all the time who don't realize that I self-published my books. It doesn't click in their heads when I talk to them that, on a mechanical level, I use the same technologies and processes as every other self-publisher. They'll say how much they hate self-pub books, and in the same breath tell me how much they enjoyed my book. Does it make sense? On one level, no. But on a deeper level, yes.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> I mentioned this in the other thread, but I have people all the time who don't realize that I self-published my books.


Perhaps I'm being a little naive here, but maybe that's because you're listed as Bards and Sages Publishing, and have a website with contests and submission guidelines?



> Ultimately, what I am talking about is public relations, a lost art among self-publishers.


Thank you for more sweeping generalizations. There are many, many self-published authors that run excellent blogs, interact well with their customers, have well-maintained web pages, and use Facebook and Goodreads to a wonderful degree. You yourself claim to be amazing at this. Say it is less, or rarer, or sadly uncommon. You can't post a thread here claiming by learning from the reader public we may fight a stereotype and then _fuel the stereotype in your own post._

David Dalglish

p.s.

I went through 2/3s of that earlier SB,TB comments section. Did they delete these self-pubbed author posts you're talking about? I'm not seeing them. I saw very few defending self-published works, and all were from the perspective of readers barring I think two posts from KBers here, and neither of those were at all offensive.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Perhaps I'm being a little naive here, but maybe that's because you're listed as Bards and Sages Publishing, and have a website with contests and submission guidelines?
> 
> Thank you for more sweeping generalizations. There are many, many self-published authors that run excellent blogs, interact well with their customers, have well-maintained web pages, and use Facebook and Goodreads to a wonderful degree. You yourself claim to be amazing at this. Say it is less, or rarer, or sadly uncommon. You can't post a thread here claiming by learning from the reader public we may fight a stereotype and then _fuel the stereotype in your own post._


I think you are deliberately playing devil's advocate, which is fine, but you do realize from my original post that my comments were in fact directed to those who have made it a habit of attacking the readers. Obviously, those who are interacting well with others are already following the same patterns that I do, and therefore none of this is addressed to them. To quote Glenn Beck, context matters   My original post was specifically addressing a particular type of behavior that is becoming increasingly common, and all of my comments since then have been within the context of that original point.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

If Double D is playing devil's advocate, I want to play William Tell. Who wants to wear the apple?


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> Who wants to wear the apple?


Hmmm...where the heck is the other David?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Unknown to most historians, William Tell had an older and less fortunate son named Warren:

http://gordonandthewhale.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/william-tell.jpg


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Perhaps I'm being a little naive here, but maybe that's because you're listed as Bards and Sages Publishing, and have a website with contests and submission guidelines?


David, the same thing happens to me, and I don't have a publishing company. Bards is absolutely right. Self-published people who act professional are treated like professionals.

Having a chip on your shoulder about being self-published looks unprofessional, and it's self-defeating. And yes, the general culture of self-published authors has a problem with that.

Shooting the messenger doesn't help.

Camille


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> If car businesses worked that way, there wouldn't be car commercials. If restaurants worked that way, there would never be specials on the menu. The point of any business (and make no mistake, writing is a business) is to attract _new_ customers and to grow. Without new customers, say, people who are swayed to Ford from Chevy, or to Red Lobster from Olive garden, you can't grow your customer (fan) base.
> 
> What happens to your business then? It stagnates, and ultimately, it fails.
> 
> I'd LOVE to see Chevy come up with a commercial that says people who refuse to drive Chevies because they have a low opinion of them are morons. How far do you think that would go? Nowhere. That's why you never see commercials like that. Instead, you see commercials where former Toyota drivers have switched to Chevy because the Chevy product somehow won them over. I guarantee you they didn't win that customer over by saying "I don't care about your opinion until you buy a Chevy."


But I think trying to advertise to people that will never buy a self-published book is like advertising Red Lobster at a vegan convention. Sure, you just might convert a few, but you're probably better off spending that energy advertising to people that already want to eat seafood.

There aren't there car commercials that make fun of fans of other car brands? I know there are for other products, and it both makes people think "Haha, yeah other people are morons, I'm gonna go buy more of their products to look smart and cool" and "Hey, I don't wanna be a moron, I'm gonna start buying their products."


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

s0nicfreak said:


> But I think trying to advertise to people that will never buy a self-published book is like advertising Red Lobster at a vegan convention. Sure, you just might convert a few, but you're probably better off spending that energy advertising to people that already want to eat seafood.


I use to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners for $1500 a pop. In sales, there is a saying "no means_ know_-I don't know enough, but based on new information I may make a new decision." 90% of the people I did demos for started the conversation with "You can show it to me, but I'm not buying" or "I would never spend that much money on a vacuum!" Really, who goes around thinking they would ever spend $1500 on a vacuum? But at the end of the demo, one out of three people made a purchase.

The point being, people who say they would never read a self-pub book or people who condemn self-pub books base those decisions on pre-conceived notions of what self-pub books are. And these notions are based on all sorts of sometimes irrational things. Instead of writing them off with some of the behavior we see, we need to learn how to better engage these people to help them see passed thier pre-conceived notions. Understand the triggers for the pre-conceived notion, and then combat them. Don't tell people they are being stupid, small-minded, petty, or uncool.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> The point being, people who say they would never read a self-pub book or people who condemn self-pub books base those decisions on pre-conceived notions of what self-pub books are. And these notions are based on all sorts of sometimes irrational things. ... Don't tell people they are being stupid, small-minded, petty, or uncool.


An sometimes the notions are based on being called "stupid, small-minded, petty or uncool."

Listen, most of us are still stuck a little in the previous paradigm, where PR is something you do on a mass level. When you're advertising on TV and spending a bazillion dollars on a single ad, you're making a big gamble and you've only got one shot, so you have to play the odds. You aim your ad at a particular demographic, and you choose that demographic with care. You don't bother with anybody else.

But we're not in mass marketing situation here. We're in a hand-selling situation. We're in a one-to-one personal interaction situation. And in that situation.... you can potentially do anything. Nothing is off the table.

And yes, it's absolutely true, we only have so much time, so even if you're hand-selling, you want to pick your prospects. It's a lot of work, after all.

But here's the kicker (and all of you who HATE marketing and who just no good at it listen up) - in this modern online world, hand-selling very often does NOT involve a sales pitch. You may not even mention your book. And odds are, any selling you do does not involve convincing the person you are talking directly to.

When you have an online interaction, you aren't just talking to one person. You're also talking to all the wonderful people out there in the dark. The lurkers. The people who happen on the conversation a year later, either through search or because they happen to be browsing through the archives. You're talking to posterity, man.

Everything you say on line is a permanent advertisement for YOU.

Camille


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Having a chip on your shoulder about being self-published looks unprofessional, and it's self-defeating. And yes, the general culture of self-published authors has a problem with that.
> 
> Shooting the messenger doesn't help.


Please show me where I've said anything to the contrary of this.

Of course you don't attack readers. Of course you don't act like a jerk. Of course you should be professional, do the best you can to produce the best work possible, and then be thankful for the readers you have. I'm not an idiot. I've gotten emails that assume I have an agent and a traditional publisher as well, and a few were just shocked that my books weren't in Barnes and Nobles around the U.S.

What I _am_ saying is that claiming a few bad apples grumbling in a single web post comment section is a sign of an impending "threat to the self-publishing industry" is just silly.

David Dalglish


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> I'd LOVE to see Chevy come up with a commercial that says people who refuse to drive Chevies because they have a low opinion of them are morons. How far do you think that would go? Nowhere. That's why you never see commercials like that. Instead, you see commercials where former Toyota drivers have switched to Chevy because the Chevy product somehow won them over. I guarantee you they didn't win that customer over by saying "I don't care about your opinion until you buy a Chevy."


That's a great analogy, David, and the car companies would have learned this decades ago, as would most any professionals who's business is selling things to the public. To act otherwise, shows a serious lack of business sense and only helps reinforce the notion that indie publishers aren't real professionals. It hurts us all and reinforces the bad stereotype.


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

I have said this before. Always, always treat others with courtesy. Even if it KILLS you to do so, respond with eloquence, an even temper, and a helpful attitude--or don't respond at all. That's what your drafts folder is for! That's why the delete button exists. I have seen traditionally-published authors blackballed for bad online behavior as well as indies, but I agree with Bards that we are much more likely to fall under the stereotype. People are wary enough already. When I see an 'indie behaving badly', I just cringe! 

I'm to the point now where I won't direct authors to Kindleboards any more. I used to do that all the time, especially if they were in danger of self-immolation on Amazon due to ill-fated promotional efforts. These days I just sit, watch the flaming, and shake my head. 

You can say whatever you want about your potential readers to your spouse or your dog or your goldfish or your best friend. You can write all the sarcastic put-downs in the world--and then delete them without posting. But never, ever publicly demean or disparage a reader or potential reader. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. 

I hear the comment all the time from internet posters (and from my students): 'Well, I just say what I think--it's the way I am and I can't help it.' Bologna. Unless you're eight years old, you can learn to temper your commentary and think before you utter a word. You may have the 'right to be rude', but I have the right to lose respect for you as a result.


----------



## Disappointed (Jul 28, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> But here's the kicker (and all of you who HATE marketing and who just no good at it listen up) - in this modern online world, hand-selling very often does NOT involve a sales pitch. You may not even mention your book. And odds are, any selling you do does not involve convincing the person you are talking directly to.
> 
> When you have an online interaction, you aren't just talking to one person. You're also talking to all the wonderful people out there in the dark. The lurkers. The people who happen on the conversation a year later, either through search or because they happen to be browsing through the archives. You're talking to posterity, man.
> 
> Everything you say on line is a permanent advertisement for YOU.












I prefer the forums format over the Facebook/Twitter format. So I use forums that are related to subjects that are interesting to me. Put a link in the signature and it's there for anyone to come across. It's a one-to-many form of communicating that appeals to my sense of efficiency.


----------



## rcanepa (Jul 1, 2010)

Authors railing against the industry is bad. I wrote a blog post about this called "It's Not About Sides--Until You Make It So" where I tried to voice some of my thoughts on the issue.

Railing against readers is worse. Insulting potential customers whom you hope to develop a relationship with is even worse.

Yet, I also feel as if it's a lose-lose situation for authors: I'm supposed to market myself, but anything I say can and WILL be held against me. I have to let people disparage self-publishing and insinuate that my work is complete crap. if I try to defend myself or state that I won't let your opinion wreck my confidence in myself, then I'm elitist and looking down on the reader. Where is the middle ground?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> What I _am_ saying is that claiming a few bad apples grumbling in a single web post comment section is a sign of an impending "threat to the self-publishing industry" is just silly.


It's not just a few bad apples. The attitude is everywhere. And I'm getting SOOOOO sick of it. IMHO, all the snarking about Bards bringing this up is a big part of it. If it really were not a problem, people would just shrug and say "so?"

Somebody up-topic (or perhaps in a different topic) said they had noticed a difference in attitude as more and more authors flood into this forum. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the problem is probably that the Eternally Disgruntled have joined our ranks. Such people have always been in the industry, and the attitude tends to feed on itself, and it is destructive to any group where the attitude takes hold.

I've seen groups that are destroyed by it, and I've seen groups that survive. All groups need a certain amount of space for bitching and whining. I've noticed that the groups that tend to self-destruct are the ones where, when someone says "enough with the whining already!" it's considered controversial. In groups that survive, such a statement is either ignored, or it's treated as a healthy indication that it's time to back off.

I'm not really worried about _this group_ - imho WE don't have a problem, really. Not any more than any other group in publishing. This is going on across the whole publishing world. I took bards' message not as a warning to people here so much as her concerns about a wider publishing issue. This subject is about our profession. It's like when we talk about having a good cover, how to get reviews. This is about how not to alienate your readers.

Yeah, a lot of us already get that point, but that doesn't mean it should not be brought up and discussed.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Tom Wood said:


> I prefer the forums format over the Facebook/Twitter format. So I use forums that are related to subjects that are interesting to me. Put a link in the signature and it's there for anyone to come across. It's a one-to-many form of communicating that appeals to my sense of efficiency.


This is what I'm talking about. And in terms of overall marketing strategies, it's still in the one-to-one category. You're still talking to individuals, even though there is an audience.

(Forums are actually even more in that category than many social media, where you're broadcasting things, and though you may engage in conversation, it's not nearly as much a discussion medium as a forum.)

Camille


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

In UK the whole belief/opinion on the publishing business is based on myth.

Here are some of the myths.

1. If you can write well you will get an agent and mainstream publishing contract.

2. The only reason agents/publishers turn down most authors is because they are rubbish.

3. If a book is displayed in a bookshop or gets a review in the national press, this means it is better than other books.

The scary thing is that nearly everyone believes these myths - especially very intelligent keen readers, literature teachers, creative writing teachers. Because, until now in UK, virtually none of them have seen/read a self published book.

I've sold some books at craft fairs etc and when I get the opportunity to speak to readers and explain how the publishing business works and invite them to sit down and read a bit of my book, they change their minds.

Yes there is prejudice. But if enough writers take the time to talk to people it will eventually change.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

rcanepa said:


> Yet, I also feel as if it's a lose-lose situation for authors: I'm supposed to market myself, but anything I say can and WILL be held against me. I have to let people disparage self-publishing and insinuate that my work is complete crap. if I try to defend myself or state that I won't let your opinion wreck my confidence in myself, then I'm elitist and looking down on the reader. Where is the middle ground?


The middle ground is to stop worrying.

You don't have to defend yourself. If someone doesn't like you, so what? That's their problem.

Here's a story that may help you understand how to handle things. One of our faculty recently had her 60th birthday (I'll call her "Rose" for the sake of the story), and at the party people told stories about her. Rose is a lesbian, and very obviously so from her overall style and behavior, but she doesn't talk about it much. One of her friends told the story about how they had been partners back in college. Way back in the back old days when you really had to stay in the closet. (Not unlike self-publishers were expected to just a few years ago.)

Rose and her partner lived in a conservative little subdivision, and did not make a secret of their relationship, but they also didn't advertise it. The partner was pretty shy and afraid, but every day Rose insisted on taking a walk in the neighborhood, openly, together. The neighbors pretty much all knew they were gay and were very cold and mildly hostile. However, whenever they came across a neighbor working in the yard, Rose would stop and chat. She would compliment their petunias, and ask how they liked their new weed-whacker. And the neighbor always looked a little surprised, and then responded well.

Rose never defended herself or her orientation. She never argued about it. She just quietly let it be obvious that she was gay, and she then proceeded to be a good neighbor.

That's how you win people over.

I would say that for Indies, it's probably not even necessary to let people know that you self-publish right off the bat. Most people have no idea whether a book is self-published or not. They claim to, but they don't. (The other thing is, if you're in a room full of writers - especially published ones - and you let them know you are published on Kindle, you may very well be rushed with questions about how it works.)

Camille


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

Well, those Brits don't even have kindles yet, so why should any of us care what they think?

I'M KIDDING!  It's a joke, really.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I am a Reviewer. About 90% of the books I review are Indie books. I had never HEARD of "Indie Publishing" until I got a Kindle. Sure, I new some people self-published books, but I was of the opinion that those people had written trash and were forced to self publish because it wasn't any good.

Fast forward to "after Kindle ownage." I accidentally picked up an Indie book. It sucked. I was so mad about wasting my hard earned money on illiterate garbage that I wrote a review, a scathing one. Well, when I purchased that book for $.99, I had also purchased 5 others at the same price. Since I had bought them, I decided to read them. Second one was garbage, too, filled with grammar issues, etc.

The third one was a Konrath book. I was impressed! I wrote a praising review. I delved into the fourth and fifth with gusto, hoping to find more "diamonds in the rough." I did, many more.

However, in dealing with Indie authors, I have also found some monstrous egos and some rather rude people. As evidenced by articles in my blog, I have found the good and the bad in both books and authors.

*I do find myself putting off reading a book when I see the author spouting off on forums*, putting down readers, putting down reviewers, and making statements like, "Everyone should overlook my horrible spelling and grammar because I am a genius and have written the Great American Novel, if only the great Americans were smart enought to 'get it'."
So, I have to agree that "authors behaving badly" anywhere, be it on a forum or on their own website, can hurt the sales of all Indie authors because people do tend to judge you by the company you keep. It's just human nature.

I, for one, after reading a book that I had to give one or two stars and receiving my usual plethora of degrading e-mails, comments and messages filled with personal insults, sometimes feel the need to take a break and go read a Commericially published book by a professional author who, more than likely, won't stalk me for an honest review. (Yes, I know commercial authors can get rude, too, but they are the minority of their group.)

So, if you think that by being an


Spoiler



a-hole


 on this forum, or any other public site,that you are not hurting your sales, and the sales of others, you are wrong.

I have gotten many e-mails from readers thanking me for introducing them to Indie authors. They had never read an Indie book and just assumed they weren't any good. The reader base is getting larger.

I will continue to read and review Indie books. I want to help those authors who work hard to put out quality reading.

I would never recommend that a reader come to the "Writer's Cafe" to get to know an author, though. Readers readign this thread could be turned off of Indies for good.


----------



## rcanepa (Jul 1, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> The middle ground is to stop worrying.
> 
> You don't have to defend yourself. If someone doesn't like you, so what? That's their problem.
> 
> Here's a story that may help you understand how to handle things.


I meant the "I" more to discuss it in general terms.  I don't feel the need to defend myself (or is that me being elitist? See what I mean?)


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

daringnovelist said:


> Tbrookside:
> On the one hand, I don't think it hurts an author to be a little controversial and opinionated. On the other hand, when people react negatively to you, it doesn't hurt to double-check and make sure they understood what you meant. Such people may very well be _your_ readers.
> 
> Camille


Or could have been, but now won't be.


----------



## rcanepa (Jul 1, 2010)

RedAdept said:


> Fast forward to "after Kindle ownage."


Hehehe, my mind totally read that in the l33t-speak kind of way. Gosh I'm a nerd.

Appreciate your post. I've seen your name referenced around here quite a bit.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

rcanepa said:


> I meant the "I" more to discuss it in general terms.  I don't feel the need to defend myself (or is that me being elitist? See what I mean?)


And I didn't mean it in personal terms. When you get defensive, it doesn't matter whether you're defending yourself personally or defending your group. It still goes back to the fact that you don't need to react in any way at all.

Just be who you are - and let people know who you are - and don't worry about it.

Camille


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Ali Cooper said:


> In UK the whole belief/opinion on the publishing business is based on myth.
> 
> Here are some of the myths.
> 
> ...


Well, those are some pretty silly myths. My writing has never had a problem garnering an agent. Alas, that does not translate into finding a publisher because today's publishers are pretty risk adverse. Despite all the platitudes about finding new voices and stuff never before done, they are in fact pretty much wedded to tried-and-true formulas and proven salable authors. If you give them something that's not been tried before it pretty much gets rejected out of hand. It is, unfortunately, all about the publishing business model which rewards safety and discourages innovation on many levels because the cost of failure is so high when one considers the whole concept of "returns," "remainders," and the dreaded, "discount aisle," at the local B&N. It's really sad to say, but success at commercial publishing really has probably as much to do with luck, with being in the right place and the right time with the right product, as it does with actual talent. Let's face it: If Jay Garon had not been able to secure a movie deal for _The Firm_, it is very likely that John Grisham would be here with us today hawking his books for Kindle as best he can.


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2010)

rcanepa said:


> I meant the "I" more to discuss it in general terms.  I don't feel the need to defend myself (or is that me being elitist? See what I mean?)


Ultimately, self-pubs needs to learn how to remove the pronoun "I" from their vocabulary. I think this is part of the problem: an inability to separate oneself from one's product.

Writing is a very personal experience. Publishing a rather public one. Writing is 100% about you, but publishing is 100% about the reader. And this, in my never humble opinion, is where folks get themselves in trouble.

The fact that a large portion of the general public has negative opinions of self-publishing really has nothing to do with you personally, therefore there is no reason to get defensive in the first place. Instead, take the opportunity to position yourself in a manner that can, in effect, take advantage of those pre-conceived notions.

People think self-pubs are poorly edited. Make sure your book is well edited.
People think all self-pub books have bad covers. Make sure you have a nice one.
People think all self-pubs spam forums and fake reviews. Make sure you don't spam and avoid situations where your reviews may become suspect.

It is the little things.

I say "Your book is poorly edited."
You say "Well, I can't afford an editor why can't you just read the story!?"
or you say "Well, could you give me some specifics so I can go back and consider it?"

In the first case, you reinforce the stereotype. In the second, you sound like a professional.

I say "I don't like that cover."
You say "Well, I like it because my sister did it for me and you shouldn't judge anyway!"
or you say "What is it that bothers you?"

At no times does any of this mean you need to jump and make changes. It simply means you are acknowledging the concern. Give the reader a chance to take ownership of the book. Acknowledgement is often the first step to developing loyalty in a buyer.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

Bardsandsages,

I think you're sharing some very sage (  ) advice that people here really need to pay attention to.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

Well said, Julie, on all counts.


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> I will continue to read and review Indie books. I want to help those authors who work hard to put out quality reading.


Bless you, Red. 

CK


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Writing is a very personal experience. Publishing a rather public one. Writing is 100% about you, but publishing is 100% about the reader. And this, in my never humble opinion, is where folks get themselves in trouble.


This is the truth in a nutshell. Well said!


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> That is difficult to believe. You are a writer. As a writer, you know (or should know) how to use words to achieve the effect you desire. Your post looks like a deliberate attempt to incite riot. From the subject line, to the appeal to authority in your first paragraph to the choice of audience, you have given forth a diatribe designed to cause conflict, not to get people to think how they interact with the public.
> 
> Either you are a good writer and knew very well what you did, or you are schlock writer who doesn't know her audience.
> 
> ...


Ditto and amen. I wanted to apologize to any reader that came here and read these posts and just say that I am very personally sorry that I allowed myself to be drawn into making comments here yesterday.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

At one time, I cared about the publishing industry a lot. I worked for it, or in it, whatever.

At one time, I cared about indie publishing, and it seemed to be "anti-NY." I was even passionate about it for a few months.

Today I don't really worry about indie or NY, because neither of them are my industry or my identity. My identity is Scott Nicholson. That is my business, that is my art, that is my life.

I'm pretty happy!

Scott


----------



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

RedAdept said:


> I would never recommend that a reader come to the "Writer's Cafe" to get to know an author, though. Readers readign this thread could be turned off of Indies for good.


And here is one of the unseen consequences of the internet. In the days when paper was the only medium for publishing, authors were rarely sighted by their readers. Now, the web brings us all together. One big, happy community


----------



## Gordon Ryan (Aug 20, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> That's how you win people over.
> 
> Camille


Camille, I just wanted to drop in a note to say how much I respect and admire your continued POV. Your message comes across as even handed and reasonable as anyone on this forum (and we have some pretty astute people on here) So please accept this vote of thanks. I suppose that your life's philosophy is why you are a DaringNovelist, and I am just a Novelist.

Cheers, Gordon Ryan


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I didn't read all of these posts... so forgive me if I'm just saying what others have said.

I do think it's important for us to act professionally, whether we've self-published or traditionally published.  It doesn't do anyone any good to bash readers, or other authors for that matter.  And we all do have differing opinions, we're different people.  But to get into arguments or act petty because of them only makes us look bad in the end.

And I'm not talking about anyone in particular, like I said I didn't read this whole thread... only pieces of it.

Like it or not, once we publish and promote our book, we are in the public eye.  We need to watch what we say and how we say it, or we will offend people, and that only hurts us.

Hope I didn't offend anyone... 

Vicki


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

I love threads like this.  They make me cringe (Do I do that?) and they make me laugh sometimes (jabs about slapped together self published work).  Then cringe again (shit, I better take another look at that file before I upload it.)  I like the fact that people can slug it out here.  Ow!  (Damn it!  You almost busted my ear drum.)  Anyway, the thing I like best about being an Indie is I don't have to argue with some twenty year old editor about... stuff.  I don't have to worry about some arcane in-house taboo about the perils of setting your book in East Detroit, or having a platypus in chapter thirteen...  hecka taboo, etc.  My books don't suck, but sometimes I do think maybe I should consider throwing a vampire in there.  At any rate, keep it up, folks.  There's plenty of ice and bandaids over on the table.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Novelist said:


> Camille, I just wanted to drop in a note to say how much I respect and admire your continued POV. Your message comes across as even handed and reasonable as anyone on this forum (and we have some pretty astute people on here) So please accept this vote of thanks. I suppose that your life's philosophy is why you are a DaringNovelist, and I am just a Novelist.
> 
> Cheers, Gordon Ryan


Thanks, Gordon. (Although I'm only "daring" because my blog is an ongoing novel dare.)

Camille


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

After reading through this thread very carefully I can only say that I'm a little disappointed.  As a human being I try to live by the Thumper rule - if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.  Why would writers deliberately risk alienating a potential audience by being rude or inflammatory?  It's not logical.  I've had people read my book and love it and others who've hated it, I've had people read it and make thoughtful, genuine comments that I've taken on board to improve the book.

Yes it's very easy now to self-publish but that doesn't mean that all indie authors are automatically bad nor are they automatically genius' who simply haven't been discovered.  There's a little of both with the majority being somewhere in between.  Have I written the greatest novel in the world?  No.  Is it a good story that will appeal to a percentage of readers? The feedback I've been getting tells me yes.  As a writer my goal - my only goal - is to continue to improve.  Would I like to make bucket loads of money?  Of course.  Do I expect to?  No.  What I'm hoping to do is build a fan base and hopefully continue to expand that.  

Writing for yourself is just for fun - the moment you press 'publish' it becomes a business and therefore you are expected to behave in a businesslike manner.  That doesn't mean you have to respond to every single comment, that would be ridiculous but it does mean that you should at least be willing to thoughtfully consider the thoughts and opinions of people WHO ARE YOUR POTENTIAL AUDIENCE!  

My beloved mother once gave me some very sage advice - if one man calls you a donkey you can feel free to ignore it but if three men call you a donkey perhaps you should find a mirror and invest in a saddle    

Someone mentioned the general impression of Muslims as being primarily terrorists - why?  Not because all Muslims are terrorists but because a percentage are and so a stereotype forms.  Let's not do that with Indie publishing because we're only hurting ourselves.

That's just my opinion of course 

Cheers,
Trace


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

(NOTE: this post has been edited to remove references to a disagreement between me and another poster, which has largely been removed from the thread. I left the parts that seemed on topic and useful.)

And the truth is, the whole "donnybrook" was due to a misunderstanding between two posters.  That was the responsibility of the people who had the misunderstanding.  And IMHO, it may well have been essential to exorcising the demons around here.   

We NEED this conversation to happen. 

Camille


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Please, no one defend me or my views.  This has gone too far already.  No good can come of it.  Best case scenario is that the moderators lock this thread.  Better than best case scenario is that everyone agree to delete their posts.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

I felt fine with what I said, but I'll take your word for it, D.A., and follow your lead.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

MosesSiregarIII said:


> I felt fine with what I said, but I'll take your word for it, D.A., and follow your lead.


Oops. My lead? I guess I'll have to follow your lead.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

@ D.A. Boulter:

I think you misunderstood the gist of my post. I would not steer readers away from this post because of Bardsandsages' post. I would do it because of the authors on here who became so antagonistic over it. 

Bardsandsages was obviously trying to offer some "sage" advice: Be nice in all your public dealings. 

Anyone who argues that is bad advice...Well, the language I would use is too strong for this forum.  

Bottom line: I agree with bardsandsages and with the advice she gave, so please don't twist my words and use them to make an opposite point.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> (later edited to add: I went back to look at Red Adept's post, and she was agreeing with bardsandsages. Did you noticed the big highlighted bit in the middle of her post at all?)
> 
> Camille


Thank you for actually reading my post.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Wow, it sounds like between the hours of about 1 and 5 am EDT, a slight, er, brawl may have broken out here.  However, it does seem as if everyone has cleaned up the broken glass and furniture.  Appreciate the self moderating, folks.  What say you?  Has the horse been beaten enough?  Shall I lock the thread?  Or do you just want to let it fade away down the topic list?

Betsy


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Ali Cooper said:


> In UK the whole belief/opinion on the publishing business is based on myth.
> 
> Here are some of the myths.
> 
> ...


Eh? So are you saying that it's a myth that good writers can land agents and get mainstream publishing contracts in the UK? Because if that's so, I know quite a few mythological creatures who have done just that and I should be getting some pictures of these legendary creatures I can sell on Ebay. Great writers and great stories do get picked up by agents and publishers, otherwise there would be no new published authors, would there?

And is it a myth that most authors are turned down because they're crap? Well...no, it isn't. That's the truth - or at least it's the truth that they get turned down because their work isn't perceived to be good enough to be published. At least 95% of writers who submit their work get rejected because they're not good enough. That's definitely true. In the same way that most self-pubbed books won't break a few hundred sales.

You're right on the third myth - at least partly. Good reviews do not a good book make. But if a book is published in the mainstream and gets favourable reviews in several professional publications then the chances are it'll be better than most self-published books. I'm sorry, but there it is. And that's the way joe bloggs on the street sees it as well.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Don't mock the readers, don't mock other authors, don't mock publishers, don't mock agents, don't mock a mocking bird, and don't make a mockery of our business.

In other words, don't mock.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

How about "Mockingjay"  

Betsy


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

You know, I still have no idea what that's all about. Call me one of the uncool kids.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Me, too. Everything I know about Mockingjay I learned on KindleBoards. Wait, here's a word from our sponsors:



Betsy


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Me, too. Everything I know about Mockingjay I learned on KindleBoards. Wait, here's a word from our sponsors:
> 
> 
> 
> Betsy


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> And IMHO, that donnybrook may well have been essential to exorcising the demons around here.


I have long held to a belief that one does not create a diamond by rubbing a piece of coal with a fluffy bunny slipper. You make a diamond by applying pressure and heat.

If people show some passion about their beliefs, and in the process come to an understanding with each other that finds common ground, then yes, I do consider it a bonus. Sometimes, some self-publishers are so terrified of upseting the delicate feelings of each other that they won't say what needs to be said. We engage in almost passive-aggressive behavior. No, we can't tell a fellow self-publisher that his grammar is bad, but it is OK to pile about a website full of readers and make fun of them for not recognize how brilliant we all are. Heavens forbid you point out that a book is formatted poorly, but it is fine to engage in heaping ridicule on agents or editors who don't acknowledge our genius. Instead of making the constructive critiques that will improve the quality of self-publishing as a whole and only HELP US ALL SELL MORE BOOKS, we make attacks on people that have nothing to do with the quality of our work or our knowledge of marketing.

How does attacking a bunch of romance novel readers help anyone sell more books? How does saying the publishing industry is against us sell more books? How does making fun of editors sell more books? That was the whole point of the thread, and if a bit of virtual bloodshed needed to happen to get that point across, then I'm perfectly fine with that. So long as no puppies were hurt in the posting of this thread.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I see that D.A. Boulter has gone through and deleted a number of his posts. I don't think this is a bad thing - at least if it's just the posts that took the discussion off track. I don't have time to re-read this whole thread immediately, but I will go through and delete or edit my responses accordingly. (I don't want to delete stuff that's on topic - just the arguement.)

In the meantime, Seth Godin had a great post about this subject on his marketing blog last year. I hope it's all right to repost most of it:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/09/righteous-indignation.html

*Righteous indignation*

This is a default response for many people--irked customers, angry bosses, disappointed colleagues. It's easy to go into high dudgeon (in fact, low dudgeon isn't even in the dictionary, it's always 'high').

The thing is: it doesn't work. It rarely succeeds in accomplishing much, and it makes you unhappy at the same time.

What if you took it out of your toolbox of responses?

What if, just like becoming a cannibal or painting your face green, you eliminated righteous indignation as an option in your list of responses to various situations, no matter how unfair? What if the people you work with weren't permitted to indulge? Just think of how much more you'd get done and how much calmer everything would be.

***

Seth is a wise man (even if his socks don't match). What other marketer has had an action figure made out of him?

Camille


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Another method I use quite often to avoid knee jerk reactions is "How would I respond to this if I actually liked this person?"  (Of course, I never need it with y'all. )  Or, you could rephrase it "if my best friend had said that."  It makes one take another look at the statements.

I like the idea of eliminating righteous indignation...thanks for sharing the blog post.

Betsy


----------

