# Being Published vs Being Published "Right"



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Before people jump down my throat, the blog I am about to share represents the views of blogger/writer Bryon Quertermous, not mine, and I am posting it here to provoke discussion. Bryon blogs today about ebook readers and writers. He says, in part:

"Now, I'm fascinated by all of this e-book stuff and can't help but follow all of the news and predictions and broad pronouncements, but the one thing I've noticed most in all of this is that readers are having a greater influence in publishing more than ever before. And, as with most changes, there are good and bad aspects to this.

The Good: Readers, and I say this as a reader myself, don't care about the minutia of publishing. The sorts of things we as authors and editors and publishers and publicity gurus debate passionately like genre and tense and style and such just don't register to the average reader. The want to be entertained. They don't care how you do just as long as you do it. And I realize this is true of myself. I read widely across genres and have enjoyed books that involved things as varied as second person narration and even animal narrators. So yeah, that's cool and puts to rest a lot of the bunk we hear about "rules" and which genres are hot or dying or whatever.

The Bad: Readers, and this one doesn't include me, don't care. Other than improper use of grammar, mistakes regarding guns, and swearing, nothing seems to bother the legion of readers snapping up these Kindle books for $.99 with awful writing, poorly developed characters, and stories that just generally drip crap out of every electronic orifice.

And I'm not talking Dan Brown or James Patterson type bad. Those guys are All Stars compared to these amateurs. But it doesn't seem to bother readers. Sure, they'll comment on it in an Amazon review or whatever, but then mention that they still loved the story and will buy the next book by the author.

But my biggest insult comes from the fact that they don't seem to distinguish AT ALL the difference between an author who has slaved and sacrificed and put in the hard work to make their book the best they can be then run the gauntlet of gatekeepers, rules, traditions, whims, luck, and corporate landmines that hold together the publishing industry or the author who gave up on the traditional route and slapped up a rough draft with some zippy copy and a garish self-designed cover with some blurbs from their mom and their old aunts writing group. It's hard some days when the writing isn't coming or the rejections are coming too fast and I want to give up. But I've known all along that I don't just want to be published, I want to be published right. Call me elitist, call me traditional or stuffy or whatever, but that's what I signed on for and that's what I'm working toward."

Your thoughts?

http://dosomedamage.blogspot.com/2010/08/readers-and-reading-part-one.html


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

My thought (and I admit I didn't click through, I just read what you quoted here) is that he's bringing up a classic strawman argument, picking stuff so far on the crappy end of the spectrum that there's nothing to intelligently discuss. Yes, there is really bad stuff out there, and few people will reasonably argue that it's good or worth money. Yeah, I cringe when I see some of it. I just don't think that's a very interesting conversation. What about the indie stuff that IS good? What about stuff as well-written and well-edited as tradpubbed stuff? What about people with genuine talent who work hard and write stories that might not be quite as fundamentally correct but still solid and entertaining? What about good stuff that would never see the light of day because it's not "profitable" or hot? What about stuff that appeals to only a niche audience, but that audience loves it? Is he saying that's not being published "right"? Is he saying everyone should go through the "whims, luck, and corporate landmines"?

I mean, it's easy to say, "There's some real crap out there!" But I don't think it's a very interesting conversation.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I've said this all along, and I'll say it again.

Readers may not be able to tell you technical issues with a book, passive voice or whatever, but they do know when something isn't working.  And they won't buy the books that drip crap out of every electronic orifice.  Those books are not selling.  I promise.

Readers will become the gatekeepers, and I think it's fantastic.  

I don't hear the readers complaining about all of the bad writing that is being self-published.  It's the people in the traditional publishing industry.  What does that tell you?

Vicki


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Lee, this is a topic that should generate some excitement.  I have to say that I can't really characterize most of the 99 cent specials because I haven't read them.  Mine, yeah, I read it.  In fact, I'm going through it again tonight, trying to ferret out the last, elusive typo or rogue semicolon.  There is certainly a quality that the standard publishing process imparts on books that go through.  Funny, though, I'm editing my first professionally published work, before I re-release it as a Kindle, and I'm amazed at some of the stylistic stuff I see.  I guess I've learned a few things since I wrote it back in 90 -93.  

Again, I don't read a lot of newbie writers stuff mainly because I just don't have the time.  I'm playing catch up with the classics.  But, what he says in there is certainly possible.  Anybody could essentially upload anything.  What does this do?

I get back to my two-tiered model.  The vetted, House-backed pros on the top tier, and the masses on the bottom.  I'm currently with the masses.  Personally, I would never upload anything I felt was not absolutely ready for prime time.  And I cannot understand how anyone else could, unless it was just ignorance.  I like to think that everything I 'publish' is the absolute best in its class or genre.  I believe that.  I can't conceive of any other way.

Perception.  He mentions the two groups of readers.  I know a person who reads a lot of romance and she said that certain houses had a rep for bad QC, bad editing.  They just cranked 'em out.  Their readers didn't seem to mind.  My old editor said of romance books, that "they rip through them like they were cocaine."  (He said that, not me.)  Anyway, the readers of that publishers line didn't care about typos and screwups.  So my point is that this is not new.  

But I hope it doesn't define Indie publishing.  I look at the current environment almost as the goldrush of old.  People are rushing in, some making good money.  I wonder if AmazonKindle might at some point mandate some kind of vetting process.  

This might make some folks mad, but I would be for it. But I'm talking about QC issures, poor punctuation and grammar, spelling.  I would never filter people's dream or vision.

Anyway, I hope you don't get slammed for introducing this topic.  Some folks get incensed over this.  I think it's a legitimate topic.  We all are, or should be, professional about this.

Best!


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

For me, the meat of Mr. Quertermous' philippic is contained in the following lines:
_
"The Bad: Readers, and this one doesn't include me, don't care. Other than improper use of grammar, mistakes regarding guns, and swearing, nothing seems to bother the legion of readers snapping up these Kindle books for $.99 with awful writing, poorly developed characters, and stories that just generally drip crap out of every electronic orifice...Sure, they'll comment on it in an Amazon review or whatever, but then mention that they still loved the story and will buy the next book by the author."_

If the readers described as 'legion' don't care, gatekeeper power seems illusory.

'Legitimacy' in the publishing business is starting to matter about as much as 'illegitimacy' does on a birth certificate these days. Stigmas are breaking down fast. It's my hope--my expectation, actually--that readers will increasingly notice and favor those odd, lovely, life-enhancing books that were beyond gatekeeper comprehension.

CK


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

I don't know where you are finding all of this horrible drivel. The Indie books I'm reading are as well edited as the traditionally pub books I read. 

I am not in favor of Amazon or anyone else starting to police writer's work. Isn't that what we are trying to get away from? Isn't that what has caused many writers to be excommunicated from the traditionally published hierarchy? Traditional publishers have been wielding power for far too long. Only a few authors have been making money. I would rather deal with the readers, and let them judge my efforts. I see no reason to slice up the pie among several other entities. I feel that those who talk about Indie mistakes are trying to either back up the dead tree publishers or invent some new guards that will charge mega dollars, and dictate to us what we should be reading. 

I like the new system, and if I pick up one or two bad books, what's new?


----------



## OliverCrommer (May 17, 2010)

I honestly don't think there should be any gatekeepers. Who are the publishers to tell me what readers will and won't read? They have no license nor authority to speak for readers. Readers should be the only people who decide what they want to read. They decide what sells and what doesn't.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

I also agree with Vicki that the fear of being overrun with crap seems to be just a theoretical problem. Sure, there's crap out there. There are bad books, crappy restaurants, and really ugly clothing -- and there always will be. But just because there are 1 million new crappy books out there doesn't mean we'll ever see 99% of them. The vast vast majority of those crappy books will only be selling a handful of copies -- in other words, most readers will never see them. The ones that start selling thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies aren't going to be utter crap -- they're just not. There are differences in taste, but I just can't imagine these truly horrific books ever selling enough copies to really make a difference or become a real problem.

Even if they did, solutions WILL arise: a better reviewer/blogger/seal of approval system, more reliance on samples, or if it gets bad enough, Amazon would step in and stop selling the books that enough customers disliked.

But I'm fine with letting the readers decide.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

Lee, I understand your own personal viewpoint, having read your blog and posts here.

However, I do take offense to Mr. Quertermous' accusations.  I worked d*mn hard to get my book as good as it could be before I published it.  I rifled through it with a freaking magnifying glass and sent it out to editors.  At the beginning, I even tried to query agents, which was a fruitless pursuit.  Those that did write me back (which weren't many) said, "we can't take a risk on a book that big from an unknown".  Now, I understand that viewpoint from a business standpoint, but how the hell can someone take issue with a writer trying to prove themselves on their own, which in itself is taking a risk?  ESPECIALLY those whose projects might be too risky to do it the "right" way?

It's downright annoying.  The drek he's talking about might be out there, but you'll find very little of it here.  I've had quite a few books suggested to me for review, and I sample each of them to make sure they don't suck, because in that case I won't touch them.  Of all the people who've written me, there have been a half-dozen, at most, that I thought were amateurish.  And those are turned away.  The rest of these folks have busted their asses trying to create a good product.  For someone in the "legit" publishing world to criticize them is the equivalent of someone from THIS world criticizing THEM.  They just don't know what we all go through.  They (he) doesn't know the amount of effort and stress that goes into doing it oneself.  Just as I don't know what goes into doing it the "right" way.

By the way, this is from a guy whose GOAL is to sign on with a major publisher.

Judging from the haughtiness of his post, Mr. Quertermous can suck my ****.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

JasonWChan said:


> I honestly don't think there should be any gatekeepers. Who are the publishers to tell me what readers will and won't read? They have no license nor authority to speak for readers. Readers should be the only people who decide what they want to read. They decide what sells and what doesn't.


As the reader side of me, I agree with this 100%. Don't tell me that what is printed is 100% perfect as it's not. I don't know about romance, but with fantasy there are several books I've read that have numerous typos, grammer problems, etc. I haven't read anything on kindle yet so I can't comment on that, but I think those that publish things like that will be weeded out and if it's a huge detriment to the story they won't sale.

As an author I didn't like that I would have to sell my soul to get my stuff published, which is why I never went with traditional publishing. I'm not willing to destroy my integrity that much just to get sales. Nor do I want to relinquish control over things I've created. So indie/e publishing is great to me.

This topic seems very trollish...like you are trying to rile people up. Nearly every person on this board is an indie author who does not have a publishing deal. Why post this to insult the majority of people here? Just an observation.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

"I wonder if AmazonKindle might at some point mandate some kind of vetting process.  This might make some folks mad, but I would be for it."

Just to qualify my comments above.  By vetting, I'm talking more about QC issues, not literary issues.  I'm all in favor of anyone's vision, whatever it is, having full and complete access to the market and the readers.

Best!


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> As the reader side of me, I agree with this 100%. Don't tell me that what is printed is 100% perfect as it's not. I don't know about romance, but with fantasy there are several books I've read that have numerous typos, grammer problems, etc. I haven't read anything on kindle yet so I can't comment on that, but I think those that publish things like that will be weeded out and if it's a huge detriment to the story they won't sale.
> 
> As an author I didn't like that I would have to sell my soul to get my stuff published, which is why I never went with traditional publishing. I'm not willing to destroy my integrity that much just to get sales. Nor do I want to relinquish control over things I've created. So indie/e publishing is great to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> Bane766 said:
> 
> 
> > As the reader side of me, I agree with this 100%. Don't tell me that what is printed is 100% perfect as it's not. I don't know about romance, but with fantasy there are several books I've read that have numerous typos, grammer problems, etc. I haven't read anything on kindle yet so I can't comment on that, but I think those that publish things like that will be weeded out and if it's a huge detriment to the story they won't sale.
> ...


----------



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

<It's hard some days when the writing isn't coming or the rejections are coming too fast and I want to give up. But I've known all along that I don't just want to be published, I want to be published right. *Call me elitist, call me traditional or stuffy or whatever*, but that's what I signed on for and that's what I'm working toward.>

How about you run that by your friend Joe Konrath and see what he would call this guy? In the meantime the rest of us can take bets on what he'll say. My bet is he won't call the guy elitist; he'll call him stupid.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Great debate!

Lee, like you, I was originally published with Five Star. I ran my book through the gauntlet and fully appreciate its challenges. I've been writing and selling my fiction since 1998 (mostly short stories, but also a novel); I spent years doing this before ebooks made self-publishing viable, so I know just what you're talking about.



LeeGoldberg said:


> But my biggest insult comes from the fact that they don't seem to distinguish AT ALL the difference between an author who has slaved and sacrificed and put in the hard work to make their book the best they can be then run the gauntlet of gatekeepers, rules, traditions, whims, luck, and corporate landmines that hold together the publishing industry or the author who gave up on the traditional route and slapped up a rough draft with some zippy copy and a garish self-designed cover with some blurbs from their mom and their old aunts writing group.


Why should the reader care how much you slaved? Why should he care how difficult publishing is? Average Joe Pack doesn't give a d*mn, nor should he; he wants a good read. How you suffered to write and publish the novel doesn't matter.

I confess that every once in a while, I'll go to youtube and peek at some silly clip from a show like American Idol or America's Got Talent. Guilty pleasure. Every once in a while, a contestant will be asked, "Why should YOU win?" They'll invariably answer: "Because I want it so bad, and I've wanted this for years, and I've been rejected so often."

My question: SO WHAT?

I only care about the best WORK: whether it's the best novel, the best singing, the best juggling, whatever. I don't care how many years you spent honing your craft, or how much you suffered for it.

Recently I spent $9.99 on a professionally published vampire novel. I'm not a vampire fan, but this book seemed to be selling well, so I wanted to see what the fuss was about. (No, it wasn't Twilight.) I couldn't finish it. I forced myself to read two or three chapters, then gave up. My next book purchase was "33 AD", an indie vampire novel by our friend David McAfee. Yes, I found a few typos in the book, but I couldn't put it down. This indie title was a million times better than that first book from a major publisher. I also recently read "Life... With No Breaks" by Nick Spalding, who's also an indie author here on KindleBoards; I loved that book just as much.

Is there lots of indie crap out there? Yes. Is MOST of it crap? You bet. That's what samples are far. I read the sample, I recognize if it's good or bad, and either buy or walk away.

I haven't mentioned any poorly written indie books in this post. But I mentioned "33 AD" and "Life... With No Breaks". Maybe this will generate a few more sales for them. And maybe THOSE buyers will spread the word too. And thus, the good indie books will succeed, and the poor ones will languish in obscurity.

And that's the way it SHOULD work. And that way makes a lot more sense to me than publishers/editors/agents being the gatekeepers.

My $0.02.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Kinda agree with Daniel here. What difference does it make to the reader how someone is published? A good story is a good story, and readers know what they like.

Why should it make a difference to the reader if a novel had two hands tweaking it or eighty? I don't give a rat's


Spoiler



ass


 how long my mechanic spent learning his craft or how many different shops he applied to (and worked for) before he came to be employed at the place where I take my car for work. All I care about is that he fixes my car.

(Oh, and thanks for the shout out, Mr. Arensen. )


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Since I wrote a book on this issue, I could post the whole thing here or just lurk. I lurk, because I like white noise.

ECP


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

robertduperre said:


> However, I do take offense to Mr. Quertermous' accusations. I worked d*mn hard to get my book as good as it could be before I published it. I rifled through it with a freaking magnifying glass and sent it out to editors. At the beginning, I even tried to query agents, which was a fruitless pursuit. Those that did write me back (which weren't many) said, "we can't take a risk on a book that big from an unknown". Now, I understand that viewpoint from a business standpoint, but how the hell can someone take issue with a writer trying to prove themselves on their own, which in itself is taking a risk? ESPECIALLY those whose projects might be too risky to do it the "right" way?


I also wanted to comment on this. I worked very hard on _33 A.D._ Anyone who doesn't think so can ask my wife about the many nights she sat alone in front of the television or worked out by herself because I was upstairs working. It took 3 1/2 years to get it to where it is now, and it's still not perfect. And I'll still fix a thing or two as I see issues arise. Which means even more work.

I had an agent once, and she tried to sell it to five or six publishers. They all turned it down. then I went out alone, and got numerous rejections, including one where the editor said he LOVED the book, but since I was not already a big name with guaranteed sales they passed.

How do ya like that? I wasn't ALREADY a big name, so even though they loved the book they said no.

I'm not against trad pubbing. Not at all. I'd love to land that big deal that could pay off my house, but I've spent over 7 years waiting for publishers, and I just ain't gonna wait anymore.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't think this is all that controversial.  As the first response said (and Vickie backed up) it's a straw man argument.

Yeah, there's crap out there, but people aren't buying it -- except where it isn't crap. Sure there are writers who slapped something together and didn't do their work or pay their dues.  So what?  If you really think they are having success you want, then you maybe need to adjust your standards on one side or the other.  (Odds are they are not having that success, but if they do, then you need to either stop doing the unneccesary work, or change your idea of success.)

I suppose I had the opposite reaction as the blogger here.  Looking at all that work that was NOT related to making my work better and more attractive to readers -- all the work that was just for the submission process and pleasing the insiders -- THAT'S what made me feel like an idiot who wasted a lot of my time, and I decided no more.

Camille


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Spalding will now translate Byron's quotes thusly:

"I'm annoyed because people are now able to post their books up without jumping through hoops like I have for decades.

"While most of the stuff self-published is indeed a massive pile of steaming crap, I've also seen some books out there that are quite probably better than anything I've ever written, and God damn it that's just not fair.

"People self publishing stuff means there are thousands more writers out there I have to compete with. I really wish they'd stop it."


----------



## Linda S. Prather Author (Jun 25, 2010)

The other side of the coin.  Readers have always been the gatekeepers.  And 99 cent EBooks aren't the only "crap" out there.  I've bought some traditionally published best sellers that were in my opinion "pieces of crap".  That comment is made as a reader, and I stopped following those authors, just as real readers will not follow any author, regardless of the price of their book, unless the stories are good.  Readers do care, and they're intelligent and they want to be entertained.  If an author is entertaining they'll pay 99 cents of $9.99 for their book, and if a collector they may even pay 25 to $35.00 for a hard copy.

If my next comment makes someone mad, I'm sorry.  But it isn't about good writing, bad writing, good books or bad books.  It's about COMPETITION!  Self-published indie authors have never been able to compete with traditionally published books.  The prices were just to high.  Even small trade traditionally published books could not compete with the bigger publishers on price.  The books were always 7, 8 or $10.00 higher than the best seller sitting next to it.  Digital Text Platforms opened the door for indie authors not only to publish good work, but to COMPETE with the best selling authors and other traditionally published authors at a price readers were willing to take a chance on.  AND THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I always felt my "traditionally" published book was priced too high.  Not because it wasn't worth that, but simply because as a new author I knew I could not possibly compete on book store shelves with the other authors published by bigger publishing companies for the same type of book.  It didn't matter how good my book was IT WAS MORE EXPENSIVE.  In one on one sales I did great because I got a chance to talk to people and tell them about the book.    

Bottom line is indie's now hold the upper hand in the "price" competition factor.  If publishers can't convince them to up their prices, then publishers will be forced to lower their prices. Otherwise their only option is to convince readers we're all pieces of "crap".  But as I said, readers are intelligent people.  They will quickly weed out the unacceptable books by word of mouth.  And indie sales of good books will continue to climb and I predict eventually surpass the published community.


----------



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

This argument is really starting to bore me. Some authors can't stand the thought of self-publishing since for the longest of time it was considered death to their career. Others fear their 'good' material will be buried under the 'crap'. It's almost like authors who know very little of self-publishing are convinced that even the most terrible ebook is selling thousands of copies and infecting e-readers with their filth. It just isn't like that. Yes, Joe Schmoe can upload his error-filled manuscript and lousy cover and sell it for 99 cents. He'll probably get maybe 5 sales a month, if that. But really, if even the potential for more money and readers won't convince someone to e-publish (I'd rather it languish unread in a drawer if I can't have it published 'right') then there's not much reason to try and discuss with 'em.

David Dalglish


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Self-publish in China and see what happens.   Somebody please give me my teddy bear.

Ed Patterson


----------



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

LeeGoldberg said:


> But my biggest insult comes from the fact that they don't seem to distinguish AT ALL the difference between an author who has slaved and sacrificed and put in the hard work to make their book the best they can be then run the gauntlet of gatekeepers, rules, traditions, *whims, luck,* and corporate landmines that hold together the publishing industry . . .
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> http://dosomedamage.blogspot.com/2010/08/readers-and-reading-part-one.html


So, what he's saying is that if your aren't *lucky*, you don't deserve to have your book published. It's an insult to this author for an unlucky writer to be published.

My thoughts? That's pretty sad.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> This argument is really starting to bore me.


If there's one sentiment in this thread I can wholeheartedly agree with, it's this one.


----------



## Danielleqlee (Jun 21, 2010)

I went to a local Writer's Club once...and only once. What I expected to experience was vastly different than what I witnessed. What I expected to see was an excited group of creative people passionate about their stories, their characters and contributing to the literary community. 

Not even close.

What I saw made me very sad. Many of these people were in their 50's, 60's and even 70's and had been pursuing a dream for decades. Submitting one query after another for more years than I've even been alive, I saw a room full of shattered dreams. I have no way of knowing whether or not these people were good or great writers, but I know they all shared a common misconception--every one of them was waiting for some corporate giant to tell them they were good enough to contribute their dream to society.

In the end, are you going to wish that you'd done everything in your power to succeed? At what point do we stop leaving our fate in the hands of others and take control of our destiny? I will not waste my life waiting for the opinion of a stranger who's paid to discard the dreams of others in order to find the most lucrative niche.

"If you can't find a source in which to belong, become the source." Neale Donald Walsch

So, in summing up, I don't care how a person gets published, it's ink on paper. What I do care about is that they believed in themselves enough to do anything to make it happen.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> The Bad: Readers, and this one doesn't include me, don't care. Other than improper use of grammar, mistakes regarding guns, and swearing, nothing seems to bother the legion of readers snapping up these Kindle books for $.99 with awful writing, poorly developed characters, and stories that just generally drip crap out of every electronic orifice.
> 
> And I'm not talking Dan Brown or James Patterson type bad. Those guys are All Stars compared to these amateurs. But it doesn't seem to bother readers. Sure, they'll comment on it in an Amazon review or whatever, but then mention that they still loved the story and will buy the next book by the author.
> 
> http://dosomedamage.blogspot.com/2010/08/readers-and-reading-part-one.html


I think the author of this article doesn't understand a specific "problem" with the Amazon review system.

1. Many of the people who are leaving reviews for Kindle books are also Kindle authors, and they are inclined to ignore problems in books that they want people to ignore in their books.
2. The amount of "review swapping" that goes on. You review mine and I will review yours.

Both of these are a situation unique to self-publishing. You don't see Stephen King leaving book reviews for Stephanie Meyers (but if he did, he would give her a bad review, he's said as much in interviews lol). So the reviews for "traditional" books tend to be more true readers. Both of these issues inflate the true number of reviews, and inflate the star rating of reviews. You see very few reviews of less than 4, because giving a fellow Kindle author a review of three (or heaven forbid, two or one) is akin to treason. Kindle authors censor their own reviews because they see their job as a reviewer to help other authors, not to help readers.

So I think what the author of the article is seeing is not that the average reader is ignoring anything, but an artificially created review pool that doesn't accurately reflect the true merit of many self-published books. And this is BEFORE you account for the people who get their friends and family to write reviews, or create bogus Amazon accounts to review their own books. If the author is guilty of anything, it is being naive as to take the reviews themselves at face value and not really look more deeply.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> I think the author of this article doesn't understand a specific "problem" with the Amazon review system.
> 
> 1. Many of the people who are leaving reviews for Kindle books are also Kindle authors, and they are inclined to ignore problems in books that they want people to ignore in their books.
> 2. The amount of "review swapping" that goes on. You review mine and I will review yours.
> ...


And your basically saying that everyone does this-which I would be surprised if that was the case.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

I am a newbie to Kindle and to Kindleboards. As I tell anyone who wants to listen, I suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous rejection from a heavenly host of righteous literary agents and publishers. They could not be bothered to give a novice a chance. 

Even one who had the credentials to write about the things in his novel (well almost all). Even though people who took the time to actually read through it all thought it was good as some well-known authors. Even though an award winning mystery author thought it should see the light of day. 

So is it right?  Think France Establishment and the republicans. Think King George and the lowly American Colonialists. 

 

Phil


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

James Stanson said:


> Other writers who self published during their careers: William Blake, Virginia Wolf, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling, D.H. Lawrence, Edgar Allen Poe, George Barnard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Henry David Thoreau, as well as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. (And that is only in the English language.)


The difference between the folks you describe and the typical self-publisher today is that these men and women were all highly educated, highly literate, and came from quite literary backgrounds. They had friends or family in the business. Most had previous experience in the industry before publishing. They invested huge amounts of time a resources in their work. They pulled in other professionals to help them. And they came from a time when writing in all forms was still considered a true artform. These authors come from an era when even writing a letter to a friend was considered a literary work that would take days to compose. I do not possess the hubris or ego to compare what I do to those folks. I strongly discourage other self-publishers from possessing saif hubris and ego as well.

And besides, Twain went bankrupt from his self-publishing project.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I clicked through to read the post. It's funny that although it's the first article of its kind - that I'm aware of, anyway - that bashes ignorant readers of indie books instead of ignorant indie writers, he manages to say the same thing the 9999+ articles of its kind that came before have said. "Most of this stuff is crap." Lather, rinse, repeat.

1. The ebook revolution is at its infancy. The field is wide open now. The good will rise, the bad will sink. It's how it always works. Even now, if you _want _ to find a good indie book, it's quite easy to do so. It's the wanting to part that's the clincher.

2. Readers are more discerning than Mr. Quertermous would have you believe. Look through some of the Amazon and Goodreads reviews. When a reviewer knows he or she has read a self-published book, they're usually more quick to point out the typos or other errors as opposed to, for example, the latest Dan Brown or James Patterson.

3. Readers aren't stupid. As a writer, Mr. Quertermous would do well to remember that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> And your basically saying that everyone does this-which I would be surprised if that was the case.


I didn't say "everyone." I said "many." And yes, you might very well be surprised by how much of it does in fact go on. I've been doing this since 2002. I've been involved in dozens of writer forums. And I've lost count of the number of times someone has started a thread offering to swap reviews or asking for reviews based off of "previews." Yes, writers ask for people to leave reviews of their book based on a preview, not reading the full book. And it happens a LOT. Don't quite see as much of that nonsense here as I do in other places, but yes it does in fact happen.

In fact, if you pay close attention, you can pick them out. The general clues:

Book becomes available January 1 on Amazon. By January 2, there are six five star reviews.

At least half of the reviews will use similar diction.

Almost all of them will use certain "buzz words" that can be found in the book blurb itself.

The reviews are generally short, and talk more about how great the "new author" is than the actual book itself.

When I see it, I call it out. Because I think this sort of behavior hurts the credibility of all independent authors. We have a huge credibility problem to begin with (ultimately, the article that spawned this thread is evidence of it). The only way to protect our credibility is to call out the bad behavior and not turn a blind eye to it. If we tolerate it, we become an an accomplice to it. We need to draw the line in the sand, so to speak, and not tolerate this behavior. We want potential readers to be able to trust us, and trust the reviews they see. nobody benefits when the entire review process becomes suspect.


----------



## Linda Ash (Jul 13, 2010)

> Yes, Joe Schmoe can upload his error-filled manuscript and lousy cover and sell it for 99 cents. He'll probably get maybe 5 sales a month,


Gaa! 5 sales a month? For an error-filled ms with a lousy cover? I'd love to average 5 sales a month right now. I'm just starting out and trying to learn about promotion and everything else. Seems that for a traditionally pubbed book, at least you've got a chance of people actually seeing it while perusing their local boolseller. With ebooks, nobody knows your stuff is there. Even if they're looking for something in the general category of what you've written, if you're just starting out, your stuff is way at the bottom of the bargain book bin. Who's digging that deep?


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> I didn't say "everyone." I said "many." And yes, you might very well be surprised by how much of it does in fact go on. I've been doing this since 2002. I've been involved in dozens of writer forums. And I've lost count of the number of times someone has started a thread offering to swap reviews or asking for reviews based off of "previews." Yes, writers ask for people to leave reviews of their book based on a preview, not reading the full book. And it happens a LOT. Don't quite see as much of that nonsense here as I do in other places, but yes it does in fact happen.
> 
> In fact, if you pay close attention, you can pick them out. The general clues:
> 
> ...


Although I disagree with most of what you have posted previously, I agree with you 100% with this being a bad thing. I think it lacks integrity. But you are right, some people will do this to generate buzz/reviews.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

If I don't have the hubris to strive to be a Twain, then "reader, pass me by."    An author without ego and hubris and the effrontery to stand behind their goods as the best they can offer should be selling Tupperware (and many writers do). I believe that authors need to validate their talents (I've published that twice from my thingy-book on 2 different threads); however, we must also give ourselves permission to accept the opportunity that Amazon.com affords (not out of the goodness of their heart, but as an atlernate business model). We may be pawns (as opposed to prawns), but if we don't take the board like Kings and Queens, we'll be castled before you know it. It's great grinding away on the same topics (they are relevant and worthy of kvetching), but if I write a dog and you write a swan, your swan barks and my dog has wings.   I am no different than the educated folk of yesterday (perhaps over-educated, which can be a fault), but I'd rather see a sixteen year old talent spread their wings in this brave new world, sword in hand, critics under foot, than watch the Indie world become a mirror of the model that spurned it (or spawned it) — take your pick and stand in line.

Soapbox away.
Edward C. Patterson
Too many years as a political activist  
==spell checked by KB==


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

My thoughts are that there is a vast middle ground between traditionally published author who has gone through all the gatekeepers, and the person who slaps up a rough draft. I think most indie authors fall within that middle ground.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ah, Lee, you do this so well...  <shakes head and laughs>

Betsy


----------



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

Wait, has no one jumped down Lee's throat yet? Sheesh, where the heck are our manners?

"Darn you crazy old man Lee and yer different ideas and your challenging posts! Raaaawr!"

There. Quota filled.

David Dalglish


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Wait, has no one jumped down Lee's throat yet? Sheesh, where the heck are our manners?
> 
> "Darn you crazy old man Lee and yer different ideas and your challenging posts! Raaaawr!"
> 
> ...


I did already, but someone jumped down my throat for it


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

James Stanson said:


> Um, haven't you ever read the first few pages of a traditional paperback that cites newspaper reviews and comments by other writers? So I don't know about Stephen King reviewing Stephanie Meyers, but there are plenty of other examples out there.


Good point. They have this in alot of paperback books. Reviews from other authors...oh and ONLY 5 star reviews of course


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

We don't like to admit it but there are some important truths to what Lee originally quoted (and what we already know he believes).  It's only common sense that since self-publishing ebooks has become easy, many writers will simply throw words out there and call it a book.  In some cases it's because it was rushed, in some cases it was because it wasn't edited properly and didn't cross the desk of enough critical reviewers and in some cases it's just a lack of talent.   

As good as I think some of our stuff is, in my opinion we shouldn't forget that ANYBODY can put a "book" out on Kindle.  I sometimes cringe when I read a post on this forum about somebody who predicts they'll finish their manuscript on Monday and will release it by Friday.  I just can't imagine that it will be as good as it can be without more review, editing and consideration.

Yeah, many traditionally published writers have a bad attitude towards us.  I don't think it's because they feel threatened.  I think it's because they are angry that we "haven't paid our dues."  That's understandable -- but on the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that the difference between some of them and some of us is merely that they won the agent lottery and we didn't.  This is our only shot.  But that doesn't make it advisable to throw shoddy, work out there as fast as we can, just because we can.

Regardless of how everybody got to where they are, us self-pubbers need to build in the layers of review that are required to put out a solid product.  When we don't, it makes us all look bad.

I choose not to use the term "Indie" about myself because it implies that I never tried to go the traditional route.  I did try, and I failed miserably, perhaps for good reason.  If I ever get to the point where I feel my work is as good as most of the traditionally published stuff maybe I'll call myself that.  For now I'll just keep trying to make my work the best it can be while admitting to myself that if it wasn't so easy to self-publish it would never see the light of day.


----------



## CDChristian (Jun 4, 2010)

Danielleqlee said:


> In the end, are you going to wish that you'd done everything in your power to succeed? At what point do we stop leaving our fate in the hands of others and take control of our destiny? I will not waste my life waiting for the opinion of a stranger who's paid to discard the dreams of others in order to find the most lucrative niche.
> 
> "If you can't find a source in which to belong, become the source." Neale Donald Walsch
> 
> So, in summing up, I don't care how a person gets published, it's ink on paper. What I do care about is that they believed in themselves enough to do anything to make it happen.


How very lovely. You eloquently stated what's in my heart---especially the line by Walsch. I was actually discussing this with my husband last night during a session of, "What am I doing wrong here? How can I do this better and how do I overcome the perceptions against my work?"

What brought this on? I don't know about you guys, but the prejudices and negativity this section of the literary world produces can wear on me at times.

Traditional publishing versus indie publishing. Mainstream versus niche. Fiction versus romance. And of course my favorite: "Erotica? Oh, that's not real writing. That's just literary p*rn."

I couldn't have chosen it any harder as a indie, niche, dark romance/literary erotica writer, could I? 

However, my husband shared some words that have really stuck with me. He said, "It doesn't matter how success you have. There's always going to be someone looking down their nose on you. Whether it's because you're indie and not traditional, or because of what you write or don't write, or because of how much you sell or don't sell. You can't focus on trying to prove your worth to those who want to bring you down. You'll never convince them and you'll never change their mind. Just be committed to your work and don't let that negativity define you."

So his words revitalized my belief that there's no right or wrong here. What's right for indies may not be right for traditionalists and vice-versa. For me, getting caught up in trying to prove my worth in comparison to a traditional writer or writers of other genres just distracts me from focusing on creating the best work possible.

Yes, it's something I'm guilty of from time to time. Yes, I do have those doubts of whether I should have pursued the traditional route. (I went straight to indie back in 2004 without trying to go traditional.) Yes, I do wonder if I'm setting myself up for failure---especially with all the prejudices I discussed above. Yes, I have made mistakes. Yes, I will make more mistakes.

But will I let the prejudices stop me from sharing my work? No.

In the end, my "right" and another writer's "right" can be different and it's still all right.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> I didn't say "everyone." I said "many." And yes, you might very well be surprised by how much of it does in fact go on. I've been doing this since 2002. I've been involved in dozens of writer forums. And I've lost count of the number of times someone has started a thread offering to swap reviews or asking for reviews based off of "previews." ....


I agree, but I think the problem is bigger than with intentional swapping. I think that there are Indie Groupies who do this unprompted on their own. Traditionally published books have their share of rabid fans, but I think that fans who like to feel a "special connection" with their pet authors tend to gravitate to indies. Same with relatives and friends who don't know anything about the effect it will have, they just want to be "helpful."

And it's only going to get worse as more people get involved. But imho, readers will just start ignoring those reviews, or treating them as a black mark. At Amazon, you can at least check out the person's other reviews. In the end, I think people will not use onsite reviews and ratings at all. For books, they'll trust to their favorite review blogs and friends they know.

Camille


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> 1. Many of the people who are leaving reviews for Kindle books are also Kindle authors, and they are inclined to ignore problems in books that they want people to ignore in their books.
> 2. The amount of "review swapping" that goes on. You review mine and I will review yours.
> 
> Both of these are a situation unique to self-publishing.


I agree that this is a problem but I disagree that it's unique to self-publishing. Blurbs (which are reviews) from successful traditionally published authors appear on back covers of fellow traditionally published writers all the time. I don't believe for a second that in all cases the blurber has read and loved the work of the blurbee. It's more likely that the publisher asked a well-known writer in the stable to help pump up the work of another writer in the stable. This makes them just as lacking in value.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> I agree that this is a problem but I disagree that it's unique to self-publishing. Blurbs (which are reviews) from successful traditionally published authors appear on back covers of fellow traditionally published writers all the time. I don't believe for a second that in all cases the blurber has read and loved the work of the blurbee. It's more likely that the publisher asked a well-known writer in the stable to help pump up the work of another writer in the stable. This makes them just as lacking in value.


Um, I have to disagree here. Yes, the publisher does send copies to big name authors as well as to reviewers, and there may be some blurb wh*res out there, but most authors have to husband their reputation on the blurbs they give out. (And they pick and choose because, like reviewers, they have way more requests than they have time to deal with.)

Look, here's the thing we have to be careful of. Whenever we say "but they do that in REAL publishing" it sounds like we're defending the practice among indies. The fact is, no matter how ethical we try to be here among ourselves, we are not your average self-publisher. And there is no barrier to entry for people who have no ethical standards. In standard publishing, there are consequences for unethical behavior. People you need will stop doing business with you.

We have to live with that. We can't just deny it or say "but those guys are bad too" all the time. IMHO, if you hear of such an instance, talk about it separately, not in an "us vs. them" way. Otherwise it sounds like we're trying to justify bad behavior in our ranks.

Camille


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> Um, I have to disagree here. Yes, the publisher does send copies to big name authors as well as to reviewers, and there may be some blurb wh*res out there, but most authors have to husband their reputation on the blurbs they give out. (And they pick and choose because, like reviewers, they have way more requests than they have time to deal with.)
> 
> Look, here's the thing we have to be careful of. Whenever we say "but they do that in REAL publishing" it sounds like we're defending the practice among indies. The fact is, no matter how ethical we try to be here among ourselves, we are not your average self-publisher. And there is no barrier to entry for people who have no ethical standards. In standard publishing, there are consequences for unethical behavior. People you need will stop doing business with you.
> 
> ...


In no way did I justify it with a "those guys do it too." I merely pointed out that "those guys do it too" to refute the argument that this is unique to self-publishing.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I want a "Blurb Wh*re" t-shirt. I would totally rock that.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I've said this all along, and I'll say it again.
> 
> Readers may not be able to tell you technical issues with a book, passive voice or whatever, but they do know when something isn't working. And they won't buy the books that drip crap out of every electronic orifice. Those books are not selling. I promise.
> 
> ...


ITA with Vicki.

Byron Quertermous can try to discredit self-publishing all he wants. But readers are pretty smart. They know when they're being entertained. If a book entertains they'll buy--if it doesn't they won't. It's as simple as that.

Sandy


----------



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

daveconifer said:


> *I agree that this is a problem* but I disagree that it's *unique to self-publishing.* Blurbs (which are reviews) from successful traditionally published authors appear...





daringnovelist said:


> Um, I have to disagree here. *Yes, the publisher does send copies to big name authors as well as to reviewers, and there may be some blurb wh*res out there*, but most authors have to husband their reputation on the blurbs they give out...


Really does look like you're in agreement. You both say it is a problem for indies. You both (though possibly to lesser degrees) admit that big-publishers do this too. Why are we arguing?

David Dalglish

p.s.

I'll take a Blurb Whore shirt as well. Would wear it every poker night.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> Really does look like you're in agreement. You both say it is a problem for indies. You both (though possibly to lesser degrees) admit that big-publishers do this too. Why are we arguing?
> 
> David Dalglish
> 
> ...


LOL, I didn't understand where the disagreement was either...


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm glad we're all in agreement

Mark Twain


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

And it IS fun to think all we Blurb Wh*res are in the same club with the likes of Nicole Krauss. She has written my favorite blurb of all time. A wraparound--so awful it's delightful. (Wait--could someone read my books and put that in the 5-star Amazon review)

If you didn't read the swirling Nicole Krauss blurb controversy, here's a nice summary:
http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2010/07/the-whoredom-of-blurbdom/


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Interesting thread - and some valid concerns but this is old news. Look at the past to see what the future holds.

19th century - Penny Dreadfuls and Dime Novels were popular. The 'Western' novel is the most popular. They included some good writers and some bad writers. They sold like hotcakes and were denounced by the "Literary" circles.

20th century - several genre were born of Pulp Fiction ($.50) - Science Fiction, Detective, True Crime, Romance. Again, there were some good writers and some bad ones. They sold like hotcakes and were denounced by the "Literary" circles.

21 century - the Kindle equivelent of the Dime novel sells for $0.99. They include some good writers and some bad writers. They sell like hotcakes and are denounced by the "Literary" circles.

Other than the delivery method and the price - nothing much has changed.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

kajordan said:


> Interesting thread - and some valid concerns but this is old news. Look at the past to see what the future holds.
> 
> 19th century - Penny Dreadfuls and Dime Novels were popular. The 'Western' novel is the most popular. They included some good writers and some bad writers. They sold like hotcakes and were denounced by the "Literary" circles.
> 
> ...


I love this. You're brilliant.

And I will add to this... who really cares what indie authors are doing? Oh wait, traditionally published authors care. Because indies are making money writing, and entertaining people, and didn't have to go through all the pain and anguish they did. Sorry.

Vicki


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

_Um, I have to disagree here. Yes, the publisher does send copies to big name authors as well as to reviewers, and there may be some blurb wh*res out there, but most authors have to husband their reputation on the blurbs they give out._

Not in sci-fi or fantasy or horror they don't.

It's obvious in genre publishing who is friends with whom. People who co-author projects together routinely blurb each other's solo projects. Are you telling me they're objective critics of each other's work? Come on.

All blurbs are marketing tools.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> We have to live with that. We can't just deny it or say "but those guys are bad too" all the time. IMHO, if you hear of such an instance, talk about it separately, not in an "us vs. them" way. Otherwise it sounds like we're trying to justify bad behavior in our ranks.
> 
> Camille


Thank you for understanding my point. The poor behavior of one person never justifies the poor behavior of another. We need to stop "supporting" people just because they take five seconds to upload a file and start trying to raise the bar for the industry as a whole. I feel no loyalty to a hack that can't construct a complete sentence just because we both happen to sell through the Kindle. I DO feel loyalty to those who sweat over their product and strive to produce something worthy for readers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> All blurbs are marketing tools.


BLURBS are marketing tools.

Book reviews are not. They are really suppose to be for the benefit of the reader, not the author. Sure, an author can use a good review to market, but the core purpose of a review versus a blurb is completely different. I was talking specifically about book reviews, not blurbs.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> I want a "Blurb Wh*re" t-shirt. I would totally rock that.


Now, would this mean you give great blurb, or you take it?


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I'd also take issue with the real core of the blogger's complaint: that people aren't entitled to decide what they do and do not like.

Let's leave to one side for a moment the fact that he expects people to care how hard the author worked. [I don't care, obviously. Nietzsche wrote the first sections of _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ in ten days. Who cares how little time he spent working on it? Not me.]

He is also annoyed that people are failing to care about the same story elements he cares about. Well, isn't that just too darn bad? He complains about "awful writing" and "poorly developed characters". Well, I can think of books off the top of my head with awkward prose and thin characters that are, well, awesome. _Atlas Shrugged_ is one. _Foundation_ is another. Frankly, "character development" in the modern sense didn't exist before the late 19th century. It's still the equivalent of a literary fashion. Is this guy trying to say that no one before Edith Wharton wrote anything worth reading? Come on.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> Frankly, "character development" in the modern sense didn't exist before the late 19th century. It's still the equivalent of a literary fashion. Is this guy trying to say that no one before Edith Wharton wrote anything worth reading? Come on.


Definitely agree with you here.

Remember, fashions change, what is "good" changes. So, what wasn't "publishable" before is now being published. Some of it might even become popular. So what?

No one thought Van Gogh's paintings were any good at the time. But viewpoints change.

Vicki


----------



## OliverCrommer (May 17, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Definitely agree with you here.
> 
> Remember, fashions change, what is "good" changes. So, what wasn't "publishable" before is now being published. Some of it might even become popular. So what?
> 
> ...


I have a great example of this. Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. I tried reading the first few chapters to see what all the big fuss is about, but I couldn't even get through it. There's zero character development, and the writing is horrible. It read like it was written by a ten year old girl. It was like this woman had zero desire to write a novel and just woke up one day and thought, "Gee, I think I'll write a novel one day." It's funny cuz that's exactly what happened.

This is just a great example of being in the right place at the right time and writing the right thing (which appeals to teenage girls).

This kind of amateurish writing wasn't publishable before, but I guess it's another example of viewpoints and the definition of "good" changing.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

JasonWChan said:


> I have a great example of this. Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. I tried reading the first few chapters to see what all the big fuss is about, but I couldn't even get through it. There's zero character development, and the writing is horrible. It read like it was written by a ten year old girl. It was like this woman had zero desire to write a novel and just woke up one day and thought, "Gee, I think I'll write a novel one day." It's funny cuz that's exactly what happened.
> 
> This is just a great example of being in the right place at the right time and writing the right thing (which appeals to teenage girls).
> 
> This kind of amateurish writing wasn't publishable before, but I guess it's another example of viewpoints and the definition of "good" changing.


I couldn;t get past the first two chapters of the Twight first book (and I bought all 4 - as I am a completist). I'm not into the 1st person present tense thing as a reader.

Ed Patterson


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2010)

All Quertermous has left to comfort him is that hollow smug feeling that comes with putting yourself at the mercy of big publishers. He certainly doesn't have the time, nor the money, nor the fans by sitting around for months on end while his book sits in slush piles. I hope the imagined sense of superiority keeps him warm at night.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

A lot of people's opinions I respect, including Lee's, say that most self-pubbed ebooks are crap. I haven't read nearly enough to form a personal opinion, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument.

The key thing I'd say to Bryon (a funny dude I used to know online and exchange crits with) is the web is a great filter. Think of how easy it is to find the most popular or useful websites, the best blogs, etc. It's no different on Amazon now with self-pubbed ebooks. The cream rises to the top eventually.

Sure there are books that sky high for a time, based solely on a strong cover and/or book blurb or reviews from friends and relatives, but they don't stick in the long run. They fade into the land of 5 figure rankings rarely to be heard from again. (Six figure rankings, now that's just plain death.)

If I were wrong about this, then readers would stop buying those 99 cent books altogether, and indies would stop publishing them. I don't think that'll happen in the coming years. I think the minor leagues are here to stay.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

LKRigel said:


> Now, would this mean you give great blurb, or you take it?


Yes.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> Yes.


heh-heh. As I supposed...


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

> I feel that those who talk about Indie mistakes are trying to either back up the dead tree publishers or invent some new guards that will charge mega dollars, and dictate to us what we should be reading.
> 
> I like the new system, and if I pick up one or two bad books, what's new?


Well said. Pretty much sums it up.

Before epublishing, gatekeepers in New York filtered written work before the readers themselves ever got a chance to decide. We all know that good books got shot down, and we certainly know that lousy crap made it through all the hoops to the bookshelf through those hallowed traditional channels.

OK, maybe not AS MUCH lousy crap as is out in cyberspace now...but I'll take the trade-off. I'd rather filter the material myself than have it done for me by some mercurial beancounters who share none of my tastes, values or interests. If 7 great books make it to their audience because the floodgates are opened, I'll accept the 3,000 poor efforts I have to wade through to find them.

BTW, I'm probably just as annoyed as anyone at the clumsy prose, stupid grammar/punctuation bloopers, ridiculous dialog, etc. etc. etc. (especially if the cover is well done or the concept seems interesting).


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

daveconifer said:


> In no way did I justify it with a "those guys do it too." I merely pointed out that "those guys do it too" to refute the argument that this is unique to self-publishing.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to accuse you of defending the practice. What I was trying to say is that when we try to refute their argument by pointing out the flaws in the other guy we can't help SOUNDING like we're defending it. Whether we mean it or not, that's how people take it.

IMHO, the best practice is to not care what the other guys do as much as possible, and to simply address the problems in our own ranks directly. We can't always avoid comparisons, but it's so much more effective to point out that we don't do that around here, and we don't accept it among our numbers. We can't control what others do, but those others are irrelevant.

Camille


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

As I mentioned on another blog on this same topic, I would ask Bryon what he would do about the "untalented" writers and "unsophisticated" readers. Put them in front of a firing squad?

I strongly believe the tide of history is flowing toward e-publishing. It so happens that right now, in this chaotic crease between traditional publishing dominance and the ascendancy of e-publishing, a huge amount of bad stuff is getting out there. But so is a lot of good stuff, including, I would imagine, a few great books.

Eventually, once the organizer-types step in and create the infrastructure for this brave new world, it'll all shake out the way we want. I'm sure that when the printing press became widely available, similar voices were predicting the end of civilization as they knew it, now that anybody could just set some type and shovel crap out to the discriminating reader.

In the meantime, we've got an exciting few years in front of us. We can all benefit from it.

Let's enjoy it.


----------



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

daringnovelist said:


> IMHO, the best practice is to not care what the other guys do as much as possible, and to simply address the problems in our own ranks directly...We can't control what others do, but those others are irrelevant.


I like this, and this also very much sums up why I just sorta don't care about all the hemming and hawing and grumbling about gatekeepers and traditional vs indie and whatnot anymore. Let's just focus on we, ourselves, putting out the best product. Someone wants to join our ranks, awesome! Someone doesn't want to? Their choice, and I won't hang them for it. Look down on me all you want. I'm still having a ball.

David Dalglish


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Bryon elaborated on his views in comments on my blog -- http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/ -- where I shared his post for discussion as well. Again, these are his views I am sharing, not mine. Bryon wrote:

"Yeah, I know it's not going to make me any friends, but it needs to be said.

I don't think it's just books though, I think the average American with regard to television, books, movies, food, cars, homes, clothing, and just about anything else we can purchase has no appreciation of quality. We (and I sadly include myself in this as well) are happier to buy 100 cheap items from Walmart than one quality item that will last. We've become a disposable culture with disposable values.

My issue is not with self-published authors. My issue is with readers who don't care about quality. My issue is with readers who do not discriminate between self-published authors and professionally published authors. I have friends and family who hold up poorly designed self-published books and ask me why it's taken me so long to get published.

There are some great indy presses that produce top notch stuff with just as much (if not more) professionalism than the major publishers. And I'll say it again, authors like James Patterson and Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer are still professional writers and have put in the hard work to be published professionally. Their 'bad' writing is NOTHING like the bad writing of the bulk of the self-published Kindle authors."


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

kajordan said:


> Interesting thread - and some valid concerns but this is old news. Look at the past to see what the future holds.
> 
> 19th century - Penny Dreadfuls and Dime Novels were popular. The 'Western' novel is the most popular. They included some good writers and some bad writers. They sold like hotcakes and were denounced by the "Literary" circles.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... speaking of $0.99, White Seed has another three weeks to go at that price. And speaking of hot cakes (Hon? What's for dinner?) Gotta go!


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I can relate to what the blogger is saying.  As a matter of fact, I was probably saying it myself a few years ago when I was rolling the dice in the agent game the way he is.  After I knew I was never getting in that way I decided to try another way.  Some, like Byron, don't change their game plan, and that's perfectly cool.  

I agree (and said so early in this thread) that the danger of e-publishing is that ANYBODY can put out ANYTHING and call it a book, and many do just that.  I don't, though, see literary sin in busting one's hump to try to put out a quality product to the best of one's ability -- and see what happens with it.  Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.  

I think Lee is one clever dude who is laughing his ass off right now.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> Yes, Joe Schmoe can upload his error-filled manuscript and lousy cover and sell it for 99 cents. He'll probably get maybe 5 sales a month, if that.
> David Dalglish


Well, Joe is doing better than me.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Hey this thread is fun. Anyone up for a cup of hemlock.   Anyone can whistle, but only the bored can let the dogs out.

Ed Patterson
Self-destruction is not a process, not on fothe fine arts.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Actually, the flood of new writers, good bad and indifferent, is a good thing. Has anyone noticed that newspapers, TV stations, Cable TV channels, and book publishers are owned by a very small group of corporations? They were the gate keepers and the area inside the gates was getting smaller and smaller. Anything that breaks that near-monopoly system wide open is a welcome change.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

James Stanson said:


> Why is it dangerous?


I was being a drama queen but it does sting when somebody like the blogger in question pulls up the worst self-published stuff he can find and then says "See? self-published stuff is terrible."


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Bryon elaborated on his views in comments on my blog ... "My issue is not with self-published authors. My issue is with readers who don't care about quality."


And oddly, that's where I disagree with him most.

I see his point. Here' a metaphor: I'm a food geek. It appalls me that people not only don't know how to make pie crust any more, but that they've never even tasted real pie crust. I have five varieties of rice in my cupboard, and as many kinds of soy sauce, and you don't want to know about the vinegars and spices and other sauces. (And they're not even expensive "gourmet" varieties - just different nationalities and kinds.) I taught myself to read Chinese so I could get the really good food at a Chinese restaurant.

When I go to my local Chinese restaurant, I admit it. I sit there eating my _hong you jiaozi_ or _dongbo side pork_, and yes, I do sadly shake my head at the poor people in the next booth who think that they're getting something really authentic when they order General Tsao's Chicken.

And I do feel superior. I admit it.

But the thing is General Tsao's Chicken was invented by a really brilliant chef at the United Nations. He wanted to bring some Hunan flavors to the American masses. It's nothing like real Hunan food - it was created for American tastes - but it's still good. Even in the hands of an indifferent parttime cook at the corner steam table Chinese.

And though I feel sorry for people who think even General's Chicken is too exotic for them, I don't think they're what's wrong with food today. I don't blame them because this area's only Malaysian restaurant went out of business. I don't blame them for the fact that I literally had to wrestle the Taiwanese menu out of the hands of a reluctant waitress who did not believe I would like it.

Because I'm not just an eater, I'm a cook. And the whole point of being a cook is to feed people well. Give them something they'd really like. And I think that's what every restauranteur should do. I mean, they don't have to please everybody, but somebody's got to feed the people who don't like onions.

And if you want to blame anyone for lack of taste in the American palate, then blame those who created this crazy eating dysfunction in the first place. Those who were too snobbish or too controlling or too whatever to let kids (and adults) really enjoy food. Those who made eating what you "ought" to eat a chore.

Same with books. If you want people to read - to become people who LOVE books and who therefore are more informed and discerning about it - then you have to let them enjoy it first. And that means you can't be a snob about what they choose to read.

Camille


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I live with a foodie, and my experience with her actually goes against everything the blogger has to say about quality.

The heirloom tomato grown by my neighbor is better than any tomato I can buy at the supermarket. But my neighbor is not a professional, and an entire chain of professionals bring the supermarket tomato to the end purchaser. The Black from Tula's I picked from my own garden yesterday are self-published tomatoes, and they kick nine kinds of ass.

My wife long ago stopped using recipes, or even measuring equipment, for anything that isn't baking. ["Baking is about precision!" she sternly lectures me. "Pan sauces are about inspiration!"] That means that every time she cooks, the result is slightly different from the last time. And it's never edited. And I eat better than anyone else in the state.


----------



## Carol Hanrahan (Mar 31, 2009)

you guys are making me hungry.....


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I live with a foodie, and my experience with her actually goes against everything the blogger has to say about quality.


Just remember that he said he's not talking about the "cooks." He's taking about the people who eat anything without discerning whether it's a good tomato or a bad one.

The key is for all authors, (indie or not) to be real cooks. To feed their audience well, and lovingly, no matter if it's high-brow or low-brow. If you're making a grilled cheese sandwich on commercial white bread with American cheese (because that's what the customer wants) then dang-it, grill it perfectly, don't burn it, don't put the cheese on crooked, don't under cook it and leave it soggy and unsatisfying. And if they don't object to better ingredients, then show them how great such a sandwich can be....

But whatever you do, DON'T disappoint them.

Camille


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I live with a foodie, and my experience with her actually goes against everything the blogger has to say about quality.


Another food analogy:

A professional publisher is like a fine, five-star French restaurant. Many chefs DREAM of cooking there; few are accepted. The food is sometimes refined, sometimes iffy (let's admit it)--but in either case, it's damn prestigious and damn pricey.

An indie is like a dad who can BBQ a mean steak, or make a killer omelet; it ain't fancy or prestigious, but it can still be great.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I'd love to know if any of those ignorant American readers here at the boards are reading Mr. Q's comments. I'm sure it'd thrill them to no end.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

BTW Lee, saw your show last night.

Sweet!


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

swolf said:


> BTW Lee, saw your show last night.
> 
> Sweet!


I know this is off-topic... but thanks! I have another episode of THE GLADES that I wrote coming up in a few weeks.

Lee


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

> My issue is with readers who do not discriminate between self-published authors and professionally published authors.


As a reader, I can tell you I do discriminate. With my wallet. I can and do find GOOD indie books and in 2 years of e-book reading, I have only read one that I did not finish because it was SO bad. (back before I knew about sampling.) I have no idea how many books I have read in those 2 years, but read my sig line and it will tell you how many I read from Oct last year to July this year. Why should I be restricted to only reading books from BPH when there are so VERY many good books out there at a price my reading habits can afford? Just because someone is indie does not make their book/story any less *good* because it didn't find and agent/BPH. I will continue to discriminate with my wallet. and anyone who wants to hold it against me can bite big dirty hairy donkey balls.


----------



## OliverCrommer (May 17, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Just remember that he said he's not talking about the "cooks." He's taking about the people who eat anything without discerning whether it's a good tomato or a bad one.
> 
> The key is for all authors, (indie or not) to be real cooks. To feed their audience well, and lovingly, no matter if it's high-brow or low-brow. If you're making a grilled cheese sandwich on commercial white bread with American cheese (because that's what the customer wants) then dang-it, grill it perfectly, don't burn it, don't put the cheese on crooked, don't under cook it and leave it soggy and unsatisfying. And if they don't object to better ingredients, then show them how great such a sandwich can be....
> 
> ...


Is this Hell's Kitchen (the TV show) or Kindleboards?


----------



## OliverCrommer (May 17, 2010)

DArenson said:


> Another food analogy:
> 
> A professional publisher is like a fine, five-star French restaurant. Many chefs DREAM of cooking there; few are accepted. The food is sometimes refined, sometimes iffy (let's admit it)--but in either case, it's d*mn prestigious and d*mn pricey.
> 
> An indie is like a dad who can BBQ a mean steak, or make a killer omelet; it ain't fancy or prestigious, but it can still be great.


That's an excellent analogy. Gotta give you props for that. 

Granted, the prestige at fancy restaurants is there, but sometimes, we just crave BBQ, steak and omelette. Ain't nothing wrong with that.


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> I'd love to know if any of those ignorant American readers here at the boards are reading Mr. Q's comments. I'm sure it'd thrill them to no end.


I don't think I'd want to based on what I've read of his comments from Lee.

And, dang it all! You guys and your food analogies. I'm enjoying reading your posts, but when you keep using food you're making me hungry!


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

My buddy bought a 3-pound DTB called "Mastering The Grill." Not "Learning The Grill," not "Doing Pretty Good With The Grill." Mastering The Grill. And he makes the best


Spoiler



goddamn


 steaks I've ever had (I've proudly borrowed the book and learned his techniques and can now grill a damn fine steak myself). Those steaks are better than the $50 ones you get at Morton's or Ruth's Chris. Hands down.

I don't really have a point, except that I'm hungry, and those are really good steaks, and I'm inviting myself over to his place next weekend, even though there's no football for another couple of weeks.


----------



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

LeeGoldberg said:


> Bryon elaborated on his views in comments on my blog -- http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/ -- where I shared his post for discussion as well. Again, these are his views I am sharing, not mine.


Yes, yes, Lee, you've made it very clear that these are his views. However, you haven't made it clear that they aren't your own. If they aren't your own, why aren't you saying anything against them? From other posts of yours, it would seem to me (and I may be mistaken) that these _are_ your views, even though the one speaking isn't you. Seems much to me like a stalking horse. You say you are sharing them for discussion, but I don't see you discussing.


----------



## Rye (Nov 18, 2008)

Seems like the same topic with a different title every week.


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Before reading through the post I said I wasn't going to post because it' s the same old argument, but here I am posting. Sigh...

Anyway - here's a point that bothered me: Let's say (for the sake of argument) every author self-published to Kindle is a moron, and every book ever published that way is total and complete crap, and that every person who bought said book is also a total moron. (Which is almost what Byron is saying, except he says "most" and not "all.")

What you have is a system of a morons feeding other morons total crap. 

What's the problem? If stupid people want to buy stupid books from other stupid people, who is that hurting? It's not like Stephen King is going broke because someone bought my book or one of the Davids'. 

If Byron thinks the masses are morons who can't distinguish crap from cream, then who is he writing for? Why is he even bothering? Why doesn't he stop working so hard and churn out some poorly edited, rambling monstrosity with a cover made by Microsoft Paint? He can even swap reviews with all the Kindle authors (cause that is the only we get 5-star reviews, you know). Then he can let the money roll in.

Because that is what we all do, right guys? We just slapped together crap and we never jumped through hoops or went to Oxford. In fact, most of us are functionally illiterate, but since publishing to Kindle is sooooo easy, even we could do it. And now without any effort whatsoever, we're sell like hotcakes. 

Why doesn't Byron just take the easy way out like the rest of us fake writers?


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

I don't see the point of these. The fact is, there are authors who are elitists and they don't like people being able to publish without going through the gate keepers. To bad for them. It's not going to change no matter how much they whine and cry about it. Game over.

In the end, the readers will decide, not all the people hanging out in their exclusive little clubs. They aren't going to keep their good relations if they keep busting on the readers as well. Not to smart in my opinion, but they will just keep this up, putting on their airs and acting as if that somehow means something.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Yes, yes, Lee, you've made it very clear that these are his views. However, you haven't made it clear that they aren't your own. If they aren't your own, why aren't you saying anything against them? From other posts of yours, it would seem to me (and I may be mistaken) that these _are_ your views, even though the one speaking isn't you. Seems much to me like a stalking horse. You say you are sharing them for discussion, but I don't see you discussing.


He's not a stalking horse for me...as you may have noticed, I'm not shy about stating my opinions! I figured you've heard enough from me... and I have enjoyed reading the discussion. Lots of very good points, and arguments, have been raised.

But since you asked...

I think Bryon's anger at readers is baffling. Why should they care how hard the author worked? Or how many drafts he wrote? Or how many years he slaved to get published? Or how many hoops he had to jump through to get into print? All that matters is whether the book is any good.

But unfortunately, most of the self-published work that I have read or sampled is awful, not just in terms of story-telling, but in terms of basic writing skills. It's certainly made me less likely to sample or buy self-published fare...and I suspect the same is true for a lot of Amazon customers.

Yes, there IS good self-published work out there. My fear is that readers will become jaded very fast when it comes to self-published fare, and that it will have a negative effect on all of us. There's a real risk that readers are going to associate any ebook with a low price tag on it, or that's from a writer or publisher they don't know, or that has an unprofessional cover, with unreadable crap...and that _will_ hurt all authors, "indie" or not. My view is that any "indie" writer who is not concerned about this issue is in denial...or terrified of being ostracized and castigated by his fellow "indie" writers.

As I have said here before, just because all it takes is one mouse-click to publish your work, that doesn't mean that you should do it. You aren't doing yourself, or readers, or other "indie" writers out there, any favors by publishing work that's sub-standard. It poisons the well for everybody.

Or, to use a food analogy, if you get food poisoning going to cheap taco places, you're going to stop going to taco places, even though there are great ones out there. And all the taco places lose.

Lee


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Lee: If most of the self-published work you have read or sampled is awfull then there must a flaw in your selection process because I'm not having that problem.

I have no wish to get thrown off the boards, but do I read more than a hint of arrogance in your superior attitude?

I think most people on this board are doing their best to produce their best work, and that is all we can expect from anyone.

Ann.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> Lee: If most of the self-published work you have read or sampled is awfull then there must a flaw in your selection process because I'm not having that problem.
> 
> I have no wish to get thrown off the boards, but do I read more than a hint of arrogance in your superior attitude?
> 
> ...


Ann,

I hope I don't have a superior attitude. I certainly don't feel superior. I am sure there are many writers here, published and unpublished, who are far more talented than me. And I have no illusions about where I stand on the literary ladder (near the bottom, in case you were wondering).

Just because someone has produced their best work doesn't mean it's any good. There are a lot of people who can work very hard writing and will still turn out nothing but swill. Depending on your taste, I may be one of them.

Some people who have self-published their work because they are frustrated by years of constant rejection may be missing the obvious -- their work was consistently rejected because it sucked. It has nothing to do with how hard they worked or their passion. My view is that you either have the talent and the skill, or you don't. Luck and timing certainly plays a role (it might explain my career!), but either you've got it or you don't. There are many self-published authors I have read who clearly don't.

All I am expressing is my POV, though surely you aware, unless you have been living with your head in the sand, that my view is also a common and widely held perception about self-published work...and, I would argue, for good reason. And not just among smug, superior, fat-cat, narrow-minded, egotistical, elitist authors like me, either, but by the reading public at large.

You have a different view than mine. I can certainly respect that...and you...even if I don't agree with you.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> All I am expressing is my POV, though surely you aware, unless you have been living with your head in the sand, that my view is also a common and widely held perception about self-published work...and, I would argue, for good reason. And not just among smug, superior, fat-cat, narrow-minded, egotistical, elitist authors like me, either, but by the reading public at large.


So, if the reading public at large thinks that self-published work sucks, than who is buying the self-published work? Why is anyone concerned about the readers buying up 99 cent crap if no one is buying it? Obviously someone is selling something for it to be such a hot point with people.

And who really cares? Why does it matter?

Oh, wait, it matters because indie authors are finally getting a break. They're selling their books and actually making money. And readers are enjoying their work. And that is killing some people. (Not other indie authors, I can assure you.)

The question to ask isn't who is buying up crap... the question to ask is why are some people so upset that indie authors are actually becoming successful?

Vicki


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Ann,
> 
> I hope I don't have a superior attitude. I certainly don't feel superior. I am sure there are many writers here, published and unpublished, who are far more talented than me. And I have no illusions about where I stand on the literary ladder (near the bottom, in case you were wondering).
> 
> ...


I don't know Lee. I hear you shouting this from the roof tops, but in each and every time I run into this attitude, it's always a "Published" author that is spewing it. Why is that? 
Most people I think are cowed by the semi-famous. They want to tell people, hey I know such and such, or I talked to such and such. Of course they will tell you what ever you want to hear in private conversation. Your famous. Happens all the time.

Markets are driven by supply and demand. If the majority of people like the Indy stuff, it will flourish. Someone is buying the so called crap that you call it. A lot of someones. Apparently they aren't learning their lessons as well, as they keep coming back for more. Or maybe, you and your buddy's are wrong. Personally I think your hurting the market by constantly shouting that Indy stuff by and large is crap. Why don't you and yours just kick back dominate your markets, and let us poor Indy's die in obscurity.

When I go to a poker tournament, or a chess tournament. I don't care one bit about the wannabes. I just crush the patzers and move on to the next. So I really don't understand this.."Your hurting the market," crap. People buy what people want to buy. Simple as that. All I hear is whining and crying. If your stuff is good enough, then all the Indy crap in the world isn't going to hurt you. Your still going to sell your stuff.


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Actually, about four months ago I would have agreed with you. Then my ex-husband died suddenly, and I thought how much time do I have left? I had already revised my novel 6 times. I'd had about 30 or more people read it, and I had my editor go over it three times.
Then on June 23rd I pushed that button.

I read several indie novels before pushing, and they seemed just fine to me. I am glad I pushed the button. I hope I don't mess up everyone's chances of selling with my little swill of a novel, but I don't think they need to worry.

I'm having fun and I'm ready to write another.

Ann


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

There is a lot of crap out there.

It's far easier for an "indie" to publish crap because with an indie, the writer and the publisher are the same person.

It's like that familiar warning: If the writer, director, and star of a movie are the same person, the movie probably sucks.

Not does suck. Probably sucks.

When you have more eyes looking at a project, the suckage that one pair misses might be caught by another pair.

====

Also, when you have more eyes looking at a project, you have the sum of all their fears tearing away at anything original. Less suckage, but more dreary sameness.

====

Every way of doing a thing has its detriments and attractions.  

I've now succumbed to the temptation of this pointless argument, gah! I am now putting my shoes on my head and walking away...


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I used to share your fear, Lee, a fear that a giant wave of crap would scuttle all boats. I don't now.

Most people are casual readers who buy half a dozen books a year on average, and they'll learn to, or continue to, ignore the indies--except for some that rise in the rankings. And why would such books ever rise? Because there are a minority of readers who are avid readers and willing to risk their time and take a chance on unknowns, on indies, and they'll propel the best of the lot into some prominence in those rankings, where they can be discovered by more and more casual readers. Think of Linux or Wikipedia--thousands and thousands of people donating a great deal of their time for the sake of millions of others. Meanwhile the major publishers and the smaller publishers continue to do what they do. It's all good.

Better than before in some ways. If you're a just okay musician you can perform at the local country club and hear some applause. But until recently if you were a just okay author then ... nothing. Now with self-publishing on the Kindle anyone can perform and hear some applause (though not all of it will be applause and there's that deafening silence too). You can even perform for folks on another continent.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Eric C said:


> I used to share your fear, Lee, a fear that a giant wave of crap would scuttle all boats. I don't now.
> Think of Linux or Wikipedia--thousands and thousands of people donating a great deal of their time for the sake of millions of others. Meanwhile the major publishers and the smaller publishers continue to do what they do. It's all good.


I can't speak to Linux...but Wikipedia!? Have you read some of their listings on subjects you know about? The amount of inaccurate, false, or pointless material is shocking. What's frightening is that there is a generation of people -- my daughter was once among them -- who think if something is on Wikipedia, it's fact. So, to make a point, I changed a Wikipedia listing without telling her and sent her to it. She read it and said, so? And I said do you believe it? And she said yes, because it's on Wikipedia. I said it's a lie. She said you don't know that. I said yes, I do, because I'm the guy who wrote that crap...and I made it all up. And you believed it was true simply because you saw it on Wikipedia. She was shocked. I then went back and deleted what I had added. But I made my point. (I also had to do a similar demonstration once to prove you can't trust that who you are chatting with is really a girl or guy your own age just because they say they are).

That's a long-winded way of saying I wouldn't use Wikipedia as an example of why a tsunami of self-published swill on Amazon, iBookstore or B&N is good for authors and readers and that quality will prevail.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Sharlow said:


> I don't know Lee. I hear you shouting this from the roof tops, but in each and every time I run into this attitude, it's always a "Published" author that is spewing it. Why is that?


Um, Bryon Quertermous, the guy whose blog post and critical comments about self-published ebooks prompted this discussion, is not a published novelist. He wants to be... but he's not. One reason for his post was to explain why he was resisting the urge to self-publish his work on Amazon and his notion of "being published vs. being published 'right'."

Lee


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

> (Lee Goldberg): My view is that any "indie" writer who is not concerned about this issue is in denial...or terrified of being ostracized and castigated by his fellow "indie" writers.


I believe my therapist would say you're projecting.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Don't take this as a personal attack, Lee, but I think the fact that you continually put the word _indie_ in quotes is quite telling. I picture you sitting on Oprah's couch, mouthing the word while using finger quotes to show your disdain. I may have this all wrong, but that's how it comes across to me. Frankly, I've found more than one of your posts insulting and demeaning.

You are 100% entitled to your opinion, and you are right about the fact that there is a lot of indie work out there that is not very good. I can't speak for the percentages, though.

But here's the thing. I worked my


Spoiler



_ass_


 off on _33 A.D._ for years. Got an agent who lost interest after five no's, got a publisher who though I'd work for free, and basically spent three and a half years refining and working on the book to make it as good as I could make it. Before that I spent another two years on other books, trying to break into traditional publishing. After so long, I started to feel like I was wasting my time, and I almost quit.

Then along comes Kindle. I figured why not? Nothing else is working, might as well toss the bird out the window and see if she'll fly.

March: 11 copies sold. OK, maybe the bird's gonna hit the pavement hard.
April: 97 copies sold. Hmmm... maybe it isn't so bad.
May: 147 copies sold... getting better.
June: 173 Copies sold. Hey, that's not bad at all, especially with the 70% royalty.
July: 186 copies sold. I figured I'd sell less in July, not more...
August: So far, 251 copies sold as of 30 minutes ago. Also marks the first bit of advertising I've done.

Does _33 A.D._ suck? Maybe it does. Are these numbers enough to support me? No. Am I going to retire on them? Of course not. And I'm sure you'll point out that you've sold far more books than that in your career, and that's good. I'm happy for you. But at least now my book is being read, whereas if left to the traditional publishing community it never would have been read by anyone but myself and a few friends and family members. And know what else? It's making me a little extra cash, too.

So you go ahead and spout off about how I should be worried and how I should have rethought it and how I'm hurting all writers by going against the traditional publishing business model. (*ahem* the _failing_ traditional publishing business model - and if you can't see that it's failing, then _you_ are the one who is in denial.) While you're doing that, I'll get a few more readers. I might not catch up to the gods on Mt. Olympus, but at least I'm not just sitting on my


Spoiler



ass


 feeling worthless anymore.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Oh, and Miss Hocking has sold over 10,000 books as an indie author in just a few months. Maybe I should have put the 10,000 in quotes? 

Just sayin'.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Okay, folks, let's not get so defensive.  

Lee is not baiting people, he's bringing up issues for discussion and debate - you know, like grown ups do.  So let's not bait him back.  Much as I'm tired of hearing the "most indie books suck so the rest are irrelevant" argument, I'm REALLY getting tired of the "you're just an elitist snob" argument.

I think we've established that all of us (elitist snobs and all) disagree with the argument that "the readers suck too."  That was an interesting debate because we really haven't heard that one around here.  

While we've already been over this point, I do think it's worth continuing to discuss the "and what'll we do when the readers are drowning in bad writing" argument.  Because even though I generally think that the bad writers out there are irrelevant, it is in our best interests to understand the process here.  It's just a more theoretical version of our daily "how do you get readers" threads.

Gotta go to work.  More later.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

James Stanson said:


> Why is it dangerous?


Because time is a resource. The more crap people have to sift through, the less likely they are to find something good.

I have a very strong presence in the RPG industry. I have a strong following and a loyal customer base. But it is a niche market, with a few hundred serious publishers involved. It is easier for quality to come to the surface and for people to find it.

Fiction is a whole other matter. Even genre fiction is a flooded marketplace. There are hundreds of new titles added to Amazon each DAY. If you aren't on the first two or three pages of the search, people don't find you. Instead of finding the books they really want, they "settle" for whatever is in front of them. Even on a small scale. You post an announcement about your new book in the bazaar. In less than a day, your post is already off the first page (maybe two or three pages removed from the first page) because everyone else is posting about THEIR new book (or books). How many of us actually scroll more than the first page of each section on a regular basis?


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Okay, folks, let's not get so defensive.
> 
> Lee is not baiting people, he's bringing up issues for discussion and debate - you know, like grown ups do. So let's not bait him back. Much as I'm tired of hearing the "most indie books suck so the rest are irrelevant" argument, I'm REALLY getting tired of the "you're just an elitist snob" argument.
> 
> ...


I was in agreement with Mr Goldberg for a while. I really was. Check some of my older replies to him. I supported his posts and told others he had a right to his opinion. I still feel that way.

It just seems like he keeps beating the Indies Suck drum over and over again and frankly, I'm beginning to find it more than a little insulting.


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

Go Amanda! I still think that's freaking awesome.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

James Stanson said:


> All metaphors, anecdotes and bickering aside (which includes for me as well), what would you have us do Lee? Let's assume that all of your assertions are correct. Let's assume the worst and say that 99.9% of indie works are crap, and that indie writers (and for Bryon, indie readers) are all in denial and that the 'well' is being poisoned.
> Is there a solution to the problem? What would be the solution to the problem? Can a solution be implemented?


Of course there is a solution. Part of it is that we need to stop holding our tongues when we do see crap and call it out. WE need to treat our craft like any other craft.

Think about it, what would you say to a person aspiring to be a fashion designer who said to you "Look, I know the zipper doesn't work and the button holes don't align with the buttons and the hem is shredding and there is a ketchup stain from where I was eating while sewing, but how does the dress look?" What would you say to a carpenter who says "Look, I know the nails aren't hammered in all the way and their are splinters on the chair and the legs are uneven but how do you like the chair?" It's the same thing when some "writer" says "I know my grammar is bad and I can't spell and the formatting is messed up and the cover is something I pulled off the internet but what about my story?" For some reason, writers separate the "tools" of our craft from the finished product. We think it is OK to "support" writers who lack talent simply because either we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or we have this misguided notion that opinions don't matter so long as the writer is trying.

We do not have an obligation to support someone simply because they figured out how to point and click. And that is a lot of what I see. Yes, 99% of the self-pub stuff IS crap. Now I've found the writers here at Kindleboards are a little more dedicated to their craft, so the quality of stuff promoted here is a bit higher than what I have seen elsewhere. But go spend a day in the Lulu forums. Seriously. You will cry. Just because someone says "hey, I'm an author too" doesn't mean I need to be all flufy bunny with them and support them blindly. My loyalty is to the craft, not the egos of wannabe writers.

Indie filmmakers and indie musicians don't tolerate hacks in their ranks. They call them out (often far more brutally than I would ever think of doing myself...and that's saying a lot). The reason why indie filmmakers and indie muscians have a certain air of legitimacy in modern pop culture is precisely because they do self-regulate. They collaborate in order to fill in the holes of their own skills.

Part of the reason I think some folks are so protective and don't want to criticize the sea of bad self-publishers is because they DO know that most of it is bad, and they are afraid to be saddled with that label. But the way we protect our integrity and credibility as writers is to distance ourselves from those that are looking for shortcuts and only care about their egos. WE are the solution.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I agree with Victorine.  If the reading public at large thinks indie work is crap, then why are they buying it?  It seems that quite a few people are willing to take a chance on indie authors, based on descriptions and samples.  I think the reading public might be less concerned about the publisher's name than the quality of the book, and I don't see how this is a bad thing, really.

That being said, there certainly is crap out there.  I downloaded a terrible sample the other day, full of amateurish writing and bad grammar.  I didn't buy the book.  I imagine most people won't.  But how other authors write is not something I can control.  I can only control my own writing, not anyone else's.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> It just seems like he keeps beating the Indies Suck drum over and over again and frankly, I'm beginning to find it more than a little insulting.


(At work, nobody's ready, so I'll continue for a minute....)

I understand, but....

He's pointing out a problem. He's not saying we suck. He's saying there's a lot of indie books out there that suck really bad. WHICH IS TRUE. Instead of arguing with him that we don't suck - which isn't the issue - we need to turn around and assess whether he's right about whether that big pile of dreck towering over us a problem.

He's not bashing indies. He may not respect indies particularly, but he's just saying that all that dreck is bad for us. It's the old "the reader will be overwhelmed by the slushpile" argument.

I personally think that the mountain of dreck is both inevitable and irrelevant. It's there. It's like rain. Or more aptly, like the internet. Lee can scoff all he wants, but for all it's wild inaccuracies, Wikipedia is phenomenally useful. (And they vet a lot more of the bad stuff than they used to - although as it gets bigger it's harder to vet.)

And what's wrong with Wikipedia is actually what's RIGHT about indie publishing. Anybody can do freakin' anything. And there is a plateau where that stops working. That is YouTube was great at first because people only put up their best clips. Then people started putting up ALL their clips - so pretty soon it wasn't just Kitty Riding Roomba, it was Kitty sitting next to Roomba, and Kitty trying to escape owner who was trying to put Kitty on Roomba, and pretty soon it was just Roomba or just Kitty sleeping.... But then something odd happened. YouTube got even bigger, and suddenly it was more useful again. Because it stopped being an entertainment site, and started being a repository.

With Amazon the whole idea of "browsing" changed. Most readers now "search browse," that is, it isn't a passive activity in which we look at everything any more. We can't. (And maybe that's Lee's problem, because he said for a while he actually looked at everything that came through Smashwords.) Instead we use one of thousands of tools to narrow our search to things we are most likely to like.

I almost never go to YouTube these days, except when searching for a specific clip, but I see more YouTube videos than ever, because the paradigm has changed, and it's no longer about browsing through dreck. The dreck is just there. Like earth. We stand on it.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> Of course there is a solution. Part of it is that we need to stop holding our tongues when we do see crap and call it out. WE need to treat our craft like any other craft.





James Stanson said:


> So, lets organize ourselves a good old fashioned Witch Hunt then?


Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't get involved in trying to police the ranks of the self-publishing writers out there. We CAN'T. That would be a colossal waste of time and energy trying to hold back the tide.

But I think what Bardsandsages really meant was that we should raise our standards for what we praise. Or even acknowledge. And that's not just for the good of the group or for the good of the art - that's just plain self-interest.

In this new paradigm, our personal credibility - as individuals - is the only currency. The more we spend it, the less its worth. We can support each other in a lot of ways, but every time you promote a book to someone that they don't like, you lose credibility, and you lose your ability to help the next person whose book you want to promote.

Look at it from the outside reader's perspective. They love this or that best selling author, and maybe a bunch of professionally published midlist authors, and they read your blog, and they find that the only time you mention these authors is to claim that some indie author is as good or better.... and all you ever praise are indie authors, and when they sample them, they are interesting, but it's clear that these authors are not in the same league as their favorites. Well, you've completely lost credibility with that reader.

At the same time, that blog may be of interest to Indie Groupies, and there is nothing wrong with doing it. If you genuinely love indies better than traditionally published fiction, then hey, you're catering to a niche market and that's cool. But the key is that you need to focus on the READERS and what matters to them, if your opinion is to hold credibility even with them.

IMHO, because most readers don't care whether we're indies or not, we're better off focusing on genres, on subjects of interest, and looking at all books the same way our readers do, when it comes to making recommendations. That's where the future of this whole thing is at. Serving the reader, not the writer.

Camille


----------



## Markee Anderson (Aug 2, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> That being said, there certainly is crap out there. I downloaded a terrible sample the other day, full of amateurish writing and bad grammar. I didn't buy the book. I imagine most people won't. But how other authors write is not something I can control. I can only control my own writing, not anyone else's.


They say the same thing about epubbed books from epublishers...that the writing is awful. But the sales must be good, overall, or the companies would go out of business. I've seen REALLY bad writing from NY paperbacks, too...where I know the authors are getting over $12,000 for a book that's only on the shelves for 1 month. At least with Kindle books, you can see the sample. With many epubs, you can't even see that.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I can see both sides here.

Like Lee, I'm from Five Star, a small but excellent publisher. Like Lee's _The Walk_, my novel _Firefly Island_ was originally published at Five Star. It was HARD to get accepted to Five Star; their standards are very high. So is their rejection rate. I'm proud of that.

And like Lee, I eventually uploaded my Five Star title to Kindle; it's now an indie ebook. I'm proud of that, too. I now consider myself an indie author. I now consider _Firefly Island_ to be an indie title. And guess what... I'm selling more books, and earning more money, than ever.

In fact, in a few weeks, I'm releasing my next novel -- the dark fantasy _Flaming Dove_ -- independently. I worked even HARDER on _Flaming Dove_ than on _Firefly Island_. I'm also convinced it's an even better book. I'm proud that it'll be an indie title. I fully intend to sell many copies and earn a nice profit from it. If anyone here says "all indies suck" (which I don't think Lee is saying, BTW), I'll send you an advance preview of _Flaming Dove_. If you think it sucks, I'm willing to change my tune about indies.

Guys, I think we're all agreed already -- Lee too. Most indie novels are drek; does anyone here disagree? In fact, most professionally published novels are nothing to write home about, either. But there are shining lights among the multitudes of mediocre works. And these titles SELL. They sell hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of copies. Let there be a million poor titles on Amazon; they don't bother me, and if some people enjoy them, that's great. I'm not worried.

As usual, just my $0.02.


----------



## Markee Anderson (Aug 2, 2010)

DArenson said:


> Guys, I think we're all agreed already -- Lee too. Most indie novels are drek; does anyone here disagree? In fact, most professionally published novels are nothing to write home about, either. But there are shining lights among the multitudes of mediocre works. And these titles SELL. They sell hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of copies. Let there be a million poor titles on Amazon; they don't bother me, and if some people enjoy them, that's great. I'm not worried.


Very well said! I look at what I give up going indie...the distribution with more sales and money, versus what I gain--no book signings required and I don't have to follow anyone else's rules. Hmmm...tough choice, given I'm a closet curmudgeon. But I agree...there should be a choice, and the books that are loved will rise to the top.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

Me, too. If memory serves, I placed four novels with Five Star, the three Mick Callahan novels and The Pressure of Darkness. Found them pleasant people, fun to work with, and quite efficient at what they were doing. Also worked with several small press outfits, one or two of them less organized and honest. Still, I liked working with a company, and haven't decided what to do with the fourth Mick Callahan book, which should be finish by mid-September. Seems to me a completely new arrangement is called for now, something that takes into account the staggering amount of man hours required to write and promote a book---and the stunning speed with which 50-60% of the market is becoming digital. I'm curious to see how this all shakes down, but there is a lot of dreck out there. I've gambled on several low budget novels and been disappointed in most. Having said that, the prices are low enough that the risk seems worth it. So how do we help shape a brand new market? By what we choose to support in the public square.

Agree those of us who've been around a few years should be careful and stick together. We live in interesting times. Gifted new authors will always manage to break through to the rest of us, because we're all also rabid fans, and talent is just so damned much fun to read.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Just one of the reasons I like you, Mr. Arenson.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Harry Shannon said:


> Me, too. If memory serves, I placed four novels with Five Star, the three Mick Callahan novels and The Pressure of Darkness. Found them pleasant people, fun to work with, and quite efficient at what they were doing.


I remember you, Harry, from my days at Five Star. I think you and I had even exchanged a few emails. *waves* Nice to see you here at KB.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Just one of the reasons I like you, Mr. Arenson.


Uh oh... what are the other reasons? It better not be anything involving chicken suits....


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

DArenson said:


> Uh oh... what are the other reasons? It better not be anything involving chicken suits....


Um.... nope. But for the record, I want you to know I just showed a huge amount of restraint. There were sooooo many directions I could have taken that one...


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Um.... nope. But for the record, I want you to know I just showed a huge amount of restraint. There were sooooo many directions I could have taken that one...


Oh, I know.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

One reader's drek is another reader's fun read. 

Who am I to judge? My brother loves tasteless food. I hate it, but I'm not going to act as a gatekeeper to deny him his bland paradise.  I've told him, "it's crap, it's not even good for you", but he insists on eating it anyway. What to do, what to do!

We all have different likes and dislikes in our entertainment (books, movies, music). Bezos has decided that variety and choice are ALL good for his business. 

Are there some books I'd like to throw off the Kindle store? Sure, but it's an open system, and I value that over the old restrictive gatekeeper model. I've also found some great books that would have otherwise been lost to me forever.


----------



## J.R. Chase (Jun 22, 2010)

It seems Lee and others are worried that piles of "drek" will poison the well and make it harder for anyone to sell anything because there are mountains of crap that readers won't sift through.  Is that about right?

Some people seem to miss the point -- as a Kindle author you are also a publisher.  As a publisher you have to promote and market your books.  It's just laziness to plop your book on Amazon and then complain nobody can find it (and secretly wish there were far fewer "lousy" books so readers have fewer choices and are compelled in a sense to buy your book).

It's the free market -- it's tough but it is awesome and it's fair -- may the best publishers/authors win.

If you can't figure out how to rise above the millions of books out there and connect with readers, then maybe you should do something else.  And you don't have to be James Joyce to be really successful.  

Is McDonald's the best food out there?  Of course not.  But it's edible and the marketing is unbelievable.  So they win. Nothing wrong with that -- it's the way the system works.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

AnnaM said:


> One reader's drek is another reader's fun read.


And that's the thing that we've said, but we really haven't _talked_ about - and I think it's where this conversation has to go. We all say "oh, there's a ton of stuff I don't like, but there's also stuff that's just awful by every standard."

Here's the thing - we've got to get past the bit where we accuse each other of being snobs or having no taste. What's the "by any standard" part?

For indies, it really comes down to what readers are buying. And can readers find you if you write what they want. For the hard working writer who is not J.K.Rowling, both of these issues are always depressing. I think the average indie cares less about bestsellerdom, but still, the fact that something you don't respect is selling like hotcakes somewhere in the universe is something we'd all like to vent about.

But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. If it sells after it find its way to the audience, it's good enough. The problem is that for niche works, nobody knows if it has actually found its way properly - historically, there are always some works that take decades to be found and appreciated - so in the end, just saying "if it sells it's good enough" still isn't the end of the story.

So what is "good enough" aside from Gatekeepers, and aside from bestseller status?


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Yeah, I agree that we shouldn't get involved in trying to police the ranks of the self-publishing writers out there. We CAN'T. That would be a colossal waste of time and energy trying to hold back the tide.
> 
> But I think what Bardsandsages really meant was that we should raise our standards for what we praise. Or even acknowledge. And that's not just for the good of the group or for the good of the art - that's just plain self-interest.


*
THANK YOU! Someone gets the point!*

When someone posts a "request for a review" that is riddled with errors and bad writing, instead of saying "Hey, go for it! Good job releasing your book!" Either give a REAL review or ignore it and move on. There is too much false praise. Too much false encouragement. Too much patting each other on the back and saying "Congratulations on figuring out how to upload a document."

It's a problem in our country in general. We reward people for _showing up_. We no longer reward _excellence_. I almost cried the other day when my nephew was bragging about his Certificate of Participation at the school fair. "I didn't even have to work hard to get it," he said, as if being rewarded for doing the minimum was a good thing. I wanted to scream. There is no motivation to get better or try to excel, because we treat the slacker who managed to pull himself out of bed and show up the same as we treat the person who goes out of his way to do a good job.


----------



## Linda Ash (Jul 13, 2010)

Okay. Lots of people are pushing the publish button everyday, but how many of us are actually selling books? Lot's of you commenters out there seem to be among those who are doing well, but really, how many are selling anything? 

I hit the publish button mostly as an experiment. I was offered a publishing contract by a small, niche publisher for a short Christmas story. The contract was terrible (for me) and nonnegotiable, so I said no. I figured that since someone had wanted to publish it, it might be good enough to self-pub and I put the story up for sale on Kindle to see what would happen. 

Turns out, not much. I put a second work up - a novella, because novellas are a very hard sell to agents and traditional publishers. It's only been out maybe a month, and not much has happened on that front either. Total sales between the two books? Somewhere around 14 downloads. 

Maybe they're both this dreck that we've all been complaining about. I'd like to think otherwise, but maybe this is an example of the system working.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

Linda Ash said:


> Okay. Lots of people are pushing the publish button everyday, but how many of us are actually selling books? Lot's of you commenters out there seem to be among those who are doing well, but really, how many are selling anything?
> 
> I hit the publish button mostly as an experiment. I was offered a publishing contract by a small, niche publisher for a short Christmas story. The contract was terrible (for me) and nonnegotiable, so I said no. I figured that since someone had wanted to publish it, it might be good enough to self-pub and I put the story up for sale on Kindle to see what would happen.
> 
> ...


My problem is beyond worrying about sales per se. I run my publishing company as, well, a company. I run profit-loss reports. I pay my writers. I advertise. I file tax reports. But my problem is the overall villification of the traditional publishing I see among indies. This thread is part of that. Obviously, I use POD and digital tech. I'm not running an offset press in my basement. But I took the time to learn the business first. To often, people publish because they were rejected, not because they actually are ready to publish. This is the pattern:

A writer sends out 50 submissions, and gets 50 rejections.

Hanging out in his writing forums, he keeps hearing how "evil", "greedy" "elitists" publishers are.

He says "They just don't want to give me a chance! I'll self-publish!"

So he self-publishers, confident his work doesn't need a proofreader, editor, etc. and gets no sales.

Hanging out in his writing forums, he keeps hearing how the evil publishing industry is out to get indies.

So it isn't his fault he doesn't get sales. It's some evil, nameless entity holding him down.

So he self-publishes another book.

But you know what I have discovered?

About 70% of the stories I hear about bad publishers (the ones that don't pay, or who edit a book into oblivion, or who expect the author to pay for all of the marketing ) are companies that weren't publishers at all. They were individuals with an internet connection and an LSI account who decided to call themselves publishers, mostly ran by disgruntled writers who themselves were rejected. If I was going to be fair, I'd guess 20% of those are people who had experiences with PublishAmerica alone!

Another thing I've discovered is that when people talk about the publishing industry, they are really talking about the big houses in New York. They are the publishers that put out the bestsellers, but not the people who still support new authors. There are hundreds of regional presses, college presses, and botique presses that happily work with new authors all the time. But people get the dream of the big advance and the big sales numbers and don't submit to them. Many of these smaller houses take chances all the time on new talent, as many of them run on grants, not profits, and have more flexibility.

The point is, everyone wants the big novel deal right off the bat, instead of taking baby steps and learning the industry.

My first paid publishing credit was when I was 18. Over the years, I worked for local newspapers, college publications, small publishers. I learned that editors aren't really the evil bastards people claim they are. They just love literature and want to see your story be the best it can. I learned publishers are business people, and they don't make decisions to "keep me down" but to keep their people employed. I go to writing conferences and talk to folks in the industry. THEY LOVE BOOKS! Just as much as we do. When they talk about their writers winning this or that award, they talk with the pride of a proud mamma.

But too many self-publishers don't see that. They think their book is flawless. Their skills absolute. And it is everyone else's fault. And the insistence on self-publishing often stifles true talent, because they simply stop trying to get better. They don't need to. They can just self publish.

I'm an editor of a journal. About 40% of the stories I publish were rejected the first time they were submitted. I offered suggestions to the writer. The writer considered those suggestions and made changes. Maybe not taking all of my suggestions. Sometimes, not taking ANY but going in a completely new direction. And the end result was a better story. And I read those revised stories and take a small amount of pride that the writer was inspired to find his or her true potential. I wonder how many self-published books were rejected, and instead of examining the reasons for the rejection and making the story better, the author just said "screw it" and self-published.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> I wonder how many self-published books were rejected, and instead of examining the reasons for the rejection and making the story better, the author just said "screw it" and self-published.




Ever get this one?

"We loved the book but we don't have enough slots for it right now."

or

"This is very well written and unique, but it's just not what we are looking for at this time."

or

""Thank you for submitting to XXXXXXX. We regret that we were unable to accept..... best of luck in the etc etc etc."

Those are the kinds of rejections I received. Not exactly helpful in the "How can I make my work better" dept. I know most of the time editors and publishers can't say what they really want to say, but as I look through my stack of rejections for 33 A.D., there is only one (out of 89) that gives an actual reason. That particular editor thought it was odd to get a story like mine during easter.

And no, I'm not whining. I like you, Julie. I'm just saying. Not every rejection is helpful. I sometimes think the writing world would be a better place if editors were mean in their rejections instead of just sending form stuff.


----------



## Linda Ash (Jul 13, 2010)

> About 70% of the stories I hear about bad publishers (the ones that don't pay, or who edit a book into oblivion, or who expect the author to pay for all of the marketing ) are companies that weren't publishers at all.


I can see what you're saying, but I didn't mean to say that I was a frustrated writer who thinks of publishers as evil. I think the publishing industry is great. And I don't have anything against the publishers who offered me the contract, I was flattered. I just didn't like several points in said contract and they didn't want to negotiate. So I said a heartfelt thank you for the offer, but no thanks. It was a hard decision.

I don't want to throw my stuff at people if it's dreck. This particular piece, though, was good enough to be offered a contract, so although I said 'no' to the contract, in the end I put it up on Kindle.

The really hard part is trying to figure out how to let people know it's there. Low sales may mean it's dreck and it may mean no one knows about it.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I still don't see the problem with all the crap.  I don't praise the crap.  I don't see a lot of other authors praising the crap either.  I really don't.  Most of the really bad crap doesn't sell at all.

Have I read any books that in my opinion need a little work?  Yes.  I've seen adverbs that should be taken out.  I've seen telling instead of showing.  I've seen POV switches that bothered me.  Have they been big problems?  Usually not... because when they're big I put the book down and don't read it.  I won't tell an author I enjoyed the book if I didn't.  And I'm fine with giving them a critique and letting them know I saw room for improvement.

But in the big scheme of things, so what?  If someone is trying to sell crap, and it's not selling, they will either 1. quit, 2. keep it on Amazon but stop spending time promoting it, and it will fall into the bottomless pit of books that don't see the light of day, or 3. seek to find out why it's not selling, thus improving the book and making it more marketable.

I'm not putting on blinders and ignoring some great problem.  There is no great problem.

Look at it this way.  People have self-published for years and years.  No one was standing on a pulpit yelling about it, because the self-published books weren't selling.  The books were too expensive for the average person to take much of a chance on.  Sure, there was the occasional hit, but for the most part, no one cared about self-published works.

So why are they getting upset now?  It's because they feel threatened.  Indies are actually selling.  People are starting to take notice of them.  Authors who would have submitted to the publishing houses are now seeing there's another way.  They get higher royalties and can do it their way.  Publishing houses are getting fewer submissions already.  They have to see the future, and the future is that no author will be willing to submit to them anymore when they can earn more money doing it themselves.

There's a real threat going on, and it's not with the crap people slap up on Kindle.  It's with the good authors deciding to go their own way.  That's the real threat.

And we're scaring the crap out of them.

Vicki


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> So why are they getting upset now? It's because they feel threatened.


I mostly agree with everything Vicki says, but I disagree here. I don't see traditionalists getting upset (with a few exceptions). I see traditionalists saying "Ah, it'll never fly" and then the INDIES get upset.

Also, many of the critics are like Lee - they are critics but they are also Indies.

Camille


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Victorine said:


> So why are they getting upset now? It's because they feel threatened. Indies are actually selling. People are starting to take notice of them. Authors who would have submitted to the publishing houses are now seeing there's another way. They get higher royalties and can do it their way. Publishing houses are getting fewer submissions already. They have to see the future, and the future is that no author will be willing to submit to them anymore when they can earn more money doing it themselves.
> 
> There's a real threat going on, and it's not with the crap people slap up on Kindle. It's with the good authors deciding to go their own way. That's the real threat.
> 
> And we're scaring the crap out of them.


Amen.


----------



## J.R. Chase (Jun 22, 2010)

I agree with Victorine.  There is no problem here (lots of hand-wringing by people who are afraid they will get lost in the pile, and they will if the book stinks and they don't market).  

And yes, indies selling books does disturb trad publishers because they see dollars being spent elsewhere other than on their own booklist.

Hey, if an author can write a crap book in a few days, upload it and make a lot of money, that's fantastic for him or her.  Doesn't affect me in the least.  If it doesn't sell at all, again, no problem here.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

_Tao de Mei-guo, shr bu shr_ 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> I sometimes think the writing world would be a better place if editors were mean in their rejections instead of just sending form stuff.


Well, in that case, send your story submissions my way. I have a razor tongue, if you believe some of the disgruntled authors that have whined about my rejection letters on their blogs. I consider each and every one a badge of honor. Really. 

But seriously, that is exactly where the small presses and periodical markets come into play. Like I said, a lot of folks want to jump straight to novel. But a great many "first time novelists" built rather substantial credentials publishing shorter stories first. And those publishing credits make it easier to sell the bigger projects. Harper & Row aren't going to send out a personalized rejection letter. Smaller literary journals and botique presses will.

Having read your book, I think your problem was publishers being afraid to touch the subject matter. Yours is exactly the type of book that probably would play well with the editor at a small college press or an edgy micro-press, but would scare the crap out of an editor from a big publishing house. But I also don't list you in with those that stop working at their craft. Its obvious you do and that you care about your product.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

bardsandsages said:


> Having read your book, I think your problem was publishers being afraid to touch the subject matter. Yours is exactly the type of book that probably would play well with the editor at a small college press or an edgy micro-press, but would scare the crap out of an editor from a big publishing house.


I think you hit the nail on the head, actually. However, I did submit to several small presses, with similar results. The only one who accepted was a small UK genre press, and like I said, they apparently thought I'd let them publish my work and never pay me. That whole experience soured me on publishers in general. I don't hate them, but when I saw an oppotunity to put my work out there myself, I was in just the right frame of mind to do it.  To be fair, I'd never heard of _Bards and Sages_ before I joined KB, so I never thought to send it there. I had heard about _Five Star_, and a friend of mine spoke very highly of them, but I was under the impression that they didn't publish my type of book so I never queried them, either.

I'd still be willing to work with a publisher, especially for the print version. Someone with wider distribution and avenues of marketing I don't currently possess. Mostly because, even though I made the book returnable and gave a 50% retailer discount, no stores will stock it. At least not around here.



bardsandsages said:


> But I also don't list you in with those that stop working at their craft. *Its obvious you do and that you care about your product. *


Aw, thanks, Julie.  You're right, I do care. I care a lot. Thank you for saying this, you just made my day.


----------



## Hair of the Dog (Jul 19, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> _Tao de Mei-guo, shr bu shr_
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


是的。


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Grierson Huffman said:


> 是的。


Yeah. What he said.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> Everyone here has already agreed that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of self published authors pushing the magic kindle button. And the people on these boards, reading these threads, are a very, very, tiny minority. So those thousands of self published writers couldn't care less what is said here.


Maybe this changes the thread direction a little, but I want to question this for a minute.

Everyone assumes that this is true - but is it, really?

There's supposed to be a flood of indie content. OK, so where is it?

Let's ignore nonfiction for a moment because apparently Amazon has always had a problem with people mass-listing questionable nonfiction how-to books and such. Let's talk about fiction.

Can someone direct me to the "flood" of self-published titles? Because I see some, but not _thousands and thousands and thousands_.

I watch the new releases in a lot of genre categories, and that flood just isn't there. Shouldn't there be 100,000 self-published space operas by now? 'Cause there ain't.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I watch the new releases in a lot of genre categories, and that flood just isn't there. Shouldn't there be 100,000 self-published space operas by now? 'Cause there ain't.


Oboy! My next project!


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Oboy! My next project!


Dude, if you write a space opera with a kick-ass hook like 33 AD you will be posting from your Caribbean island by this time next year.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

tbrookside said:


> Dude, if you write a space opera with a kick-ass hook like 33 AD you will be posting from your Caribbean island by this time next year.





David McAfee said:


> Oboy! My next project!


Vampires in space!


Betsy


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Oboy! My next project!


Vampires try to assassinate Xenu. There's your space opera, Mr. McAfee.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> Dude, if you write a space opera with a kick-ass hook like 33 AD you will be posting from your Caribbean island by this time next year.


Um.... vampires in 3033 A.D. find the newly reincarnated Jesus and try to kill him again?


----------



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

David McAfee said:


> Um.... vampires in 3033 A.D. find the newly reincarnated Jesus and try to kill him again?


Aw man, you're already getting formulaic. Lame.

Send vampires after Cthulhu, instead.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Linda Ash said:


> The really hard part is trying to figure out how to let people know it's there. Low sales may mean it's dreck and it may mean no one knows about it.


It could also mean the books don't fit neatly into an established genre, or they aren't timely. A seasonal (Christmas) children's short story (57KB, and you don't mention length in pages) might not sell well in August.

The other story (Witch of Starmont) has no reviews, and the tags are chick lit, fantasy, suspense and women's fiction. I'm confused by those tags, as I equate chick lit with something light and humorous -- but then the description reads more like women's fiction/romance, with only one obstacle to the romance (the mean secret-wielding ex-husband?).

If I'm unsure I'll move on to find something else. Could you include a brief excerpt on the product page?

Maybe you could change up the product description? Help the reader to feel some emotion.

Mara Peterson's herbal remedies can't cure her own deep pain. Her ex- husband controls her life with a secret that sabotages her happiness at every turn -- making a clean start impossible.

When sexy Jack Smith appears in her garden he brings the key to ending her silent suffering -- but only if Mara can heal herself and trust his love.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Aw man, you're already getting formulaic. Lame.
> 
> Send vampires after Cthulhu, instead.


Hmmm....

A group of vampires takes over a spaceship that is supposed to take some holy relics to a museam in the Andromeda system. But shortly after they kill the crew, they fall into a worm hole and have no idea where they are. Now they have to find their way home, and fast, because the ship's stores aren't exactly set up for the undead, and every day they get hungrier and hungrier.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> There's supposed to be a flood of indie content. OK, so where is it?
> 
> Let's ignore nonfiction for a moment because apparently Amazon has always had a problem with people mass-listing questionable nonfiction how-to books and such. Let's talk about fiction.
> 
> Can someone direct me to the "flood" of self-published titles? Because I see some, but not _thousands and thousands and thousands_.


I have the same reaction. Where is all this slush? I've judged the RWA annual contest. There are hundreds of romance submissions that never get published by mainstream publishers. I expected to see them all on Kindle -- but no. Are all those authors holding onto them and still hoping for a print contract? Are they on Kindle store, but ranked so low I never see them on search results?

I'm just not seeing the tsunami of self-published dreck that certain people keep ranting about. Where is it? I do see some very good indie work in the top 100 lists in various genres. Is it possible that the good stuff is already working it's way to the top? Is it possible that the reader vetting system works?

Also, if everyone is self-pubbing, shouldn't we be seeing new authors introducing themselves on this board every five minutes? Do we even get one or two new authors dropping in here a week?


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Amazon's Kindle Store title list appears to go up by about 10000 titles a month, but a lot of that content is nonfiction, and there is a lot of previously-published backlist material that is added to the store every month too.

Bowker says that 288000 titles a year are _traditionally_ published in the US. So even if just the new traditionally-published titles were being added to the Kindle Store, and a fraction of the cumulative backlist, it would account for just about all of the store's title growth.

In the entire Fantasy section in the Kindle Store, 63 titles have been added in the last 30 days.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I watch the new releases in a lot of genre categories, and that flood just isn't there. Shouldn't there be 100,000 self-published space operas by now? 'Cause there ain't.


Hey!


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

The people most likely to take offence (quite rightly) here are the readers. Those sweeping statements are unbelievably insulting.

The only self-published books I've read have been meticulously prepared re grammar and punctuation.

What worries me more are published 'right' authors who state things such as - and I read this recently but can't remember who was saying it - it doesn't matter if they can't spell or write correctly because that's what editors are for. I think this is a very lazy attitude and gives some new authors the idea they can scrawl a rough draft and have someone do all the hard work for them if they're published 'right'. Whereas authors intending to self-publish from the start know they have to take all this responsibility themselves.

This author would also do well to remember a couple of things.

1. The customer (in this case, reader) is always right.

2. If you want people to give you their money it's really a bad idea to publicly say how stupid they are.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Ali Cooper said:


> The people most likely to take offence (quite rightly) here are the readers. Those sweeping statements are unbelievably insulting.


My point exactly.


----------



## Hair of the Dog (Jul 19, 2010)

James Stanson said:


> It's a great question and I can't. I have no idea how to find a number for you.
> 
> Either
> A) It's true and the point stands
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02FOB-medium-t.html


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

To put that 63 titles into perspective, that's 756 titles a year.

In the 2008 _Year's Best Science Fiction_, Gardner Dozois indicates that 1710 original books were published in 2007 in the science fiction genre.

Assuming that the fantasy genre is roughly the same size as the science fiction genre, Kindle Store title growth isn't keeping pace with pre-recession title growth in traditional genre publishing _alone_.

Edited to say: we don't have to assume, I just checked the Kindle Store sci-fi section and 64 titles have been added in the last 30 days. So it's essentially the same.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Grierson Huffman said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02FOB-medium-t.html


Those 700000 titles went _somewhere_, but they didn't go into the Kindle Store.

That's the mystery to me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

AnnaM said:


> I have the same reaction. Where is all this slush? I've judged the RWA annual contest. There are hundreds of romance submissions that never get published by mainstream publishers. I expected to see them all on Kindle -- but no. Are all those authors holding onto them and still hoping for a print contract? Are they on Kindle store, but ranked so low I never see them on search results?
> 
> I'm just not seeing the tsunami of self-published dreck that certain people keep ranting about. Where is it? I do see some very good indie work in the top 100 lists in various genres. Is it possible that the good stuff is already working it's way to the top? Is it possible that the reader vetting system works?
> 
> Also, if everyone is self-pubbing, shouldn't we be seeing new authors introducing themselves on this board every five minutes? Do we even get one or two new authors dropping in here a week?


Lulu.com just announced a few months ago that it had over *ONE MILLION* authors using its service. Smashwords.com has tens of thousands of authors. Createspace is running in the tens of thousands now. Add to this the people who use places like Vantage, Xlibis, IUniverse (at around 20,000 authors EACH), and other vanity presses. And this doesn't even include the smaller, regional services. Self-publishing existed before the Kindle. Many "Kindle" authors don't even list directly with Amazon. My listings are handled through Mobipocket.com, for example, because they feed my books to about twenty different services instead of me having to manually handle each one. There was a whole universe of digital publishing before the Kindle. Kindle just made it more mainstream. You aren't seeing it, maybe because you don't want to. Maybe you just aren't sensitive to it. Maybe you take everything at face value and never really looked below the surface at all of those so-called "publisher" names listed next to titles to find out the publisher only had one author.

And while I love kindleboards precisely because it does offer this sort of animated discussion, in the grand scheme of the universe why would you believe it was essential for an author to join? What makes you think most people even KNOW this site exists? This site has a few thousand members. Amazon has sold a few million kindles. By your logic, shouldn't there be a few million members?


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

I know it's there. I see it. I'm just smart enough to recognize and avoid buying it. Most readers are, too. 

Seriously. THEY ARE.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> I know it's there. I see it. I'm just smart enough to recognize and avoid buying it. Most readers are, too.
> 
> Seriously. THEY ARE.


Yep. Exactly.

And it's insulting to say that readers are dumb and don't know a good book from a hole in the head.

Vicki


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

David Derrico said:


> My thought (and I admit I didn't click through, I just read what you quoted here) is that he's bringing up a classic strawman argument, picking stuff so far on the crappy end of the spectrum that there's nothing to intelligently discuss. Yes, there is really bad stuff out there, and few people will reasonably argue that it's good or worth money. Yeah, I cringe when I see some of it. I just don't think that's a very interesting conversation. What about the indie stuff that IS good? What about stuff as well-written and well-edited as tradpubbed stuff? What about people with genuine talent who work hard and write stories that might not be quite as fundamentally correct but still solid and entertaining? What about good stuff that would never see the light of day because it's not "profitable" or hot? What about stuff that appeals to only a niche audience, but that audience loves it? Is he saying that's not being published "right"? Is he saying everyone should go through the "whims, luck, and corporate landmines"?
> 
> I mean, it's easy to say, "There's some real crap out there!" But I don't think it's a very interesting conversation.


Well pit. That's almost the exact reaction I had. After all, it's not as if traditional publishers don't put out books that have editing mistakes in them (they are often few, but you'll find one or two in most novels). But that's beside the point. E-publishing is exciting because it offers readers a new mass market. People seem to forget that boilerplate has always been around and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact is that almost all great genre writers of the past relied on pulp magazines and small publishers to get their work to the public. With the rising cost of traditional publishing, a lot of those small publishers and almost all the genre magazines are gone or transformed. A new mass market is needed, obviously wanted, and ultimately good for literature. That some of the material released via the internet is not of a tremendously high quality is not only inevitable, but also not really that big a setback to readers (it is telling that they are buying up 99 cent books like crazy, isn't it?). After all, at the prices literature can be offered through Kindle, one can afford to read one or two or even three lemons to get to a really great book. And why not? The journey's sometimes as much fun as the arrival.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

AnnaM said:


> Also, if everyone is self-pubbing, shouldn't we be seeing new authors introducing themselves on this board every five minutes? Do we even get one or two new authors dropping in here a week?


We actually have anywhere from 3-5 new authors each day. . . .I know. . . .'cause I try to be sure each one gets a "welcome aboard". 

And, as a guess, I'd say we have 5 - 10 already-a-member authors who announce new titles each week.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

They're also smart enough to see through the incestuous "I love this book! It was much better than 'Cats'! I'm going to read it again and again!" reviews. Give 'em some credit.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> Lulu.com just announced a few months ago that it had over ONE MILLION authors using its service. Smashwords.com has tens of thousands of authors. Createspace is running in the tens of thousands now. Add to this the people who use places like Vantage, Xlibis, IUniverse (at around 20,000 authors EACH), and other vanity presses. And this doesn't even include the smaller, regional services. Self-publishing existed before the Kindle. Many "Kindle" authors don't even list directly with Amazon. My listings are handled through Mobipocket.com, for example, because they feed my books to about twenty different services instead of me having to manually handle each one. There was a whole universe of digital publishing before the Kindle. Kindle just made it more mainstream. You aren't seeing it, maybe because you don't want to. Maybe you just aren't sensitive to it. Maybe you take everything at face value and never really looked below the surface at all of those so-called "publisher" names listed next to titles to find out the publisher only had one author.


There are 630000 titles in the Kindle Store.

Total.

That represents three years of title accumulation.

There may be a million authors on Lulu, but they certainly aren't subjecting retail readers to their material. Not in the Kindle Store, anyway, which is held up as the big villain here. There are many fewer titles in the other stores [not counting public domain titles].

The fact remains that if the Kindle Store can't add titles at a rate that even equals the new publication rates of print publishing, it's irrational to claim that there's a tidal wave of slush overtaking the market.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

The numbers being quoted on this thread are really fascinating.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

A great writer can write a great novel, but a good story teller can take you wherever he wants to take you. When you are there, he can suspend you, and ratchet your emotions, or evoke grand images full of eloquent detail. He can expand your imagination, and twist your heart like a clenching fist. Only by his will will you be loosed from the place he has taken your mind, and your soul.  -  M.R. Mathias  8/10/2010

    The reason why this is important is because a great story teller might be illiterate.  Publishers dont publish illiterate people, they generaly publish writers.

    That is why being published at all is sometimes irrellevant. 
      
    I am not published "right" or even "well".  I am INDY. I am grammar-poor, editor-poor, and advertising-poor. But I can tell a tale, because I am a story teller!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

M.R. Mathias said:


> I am not published "right" or even "well". I am INDY. I am grammar-poor, editor-poor, and advertising-poor. But I can tell a tale, because I am a story teller!


And that's great. . .I admire that. . . but if I pay money for your tale, and find that it's too hard to read because of poor grammar/spelling/formatting. . . .I, as a reader and consumer, am not going to be happy. So, by all means. . .get that story down on paper. . . .but PLEASE, if you know that the mechanics are not your strong point, get someone (or several someones) to do some proofreading for you!


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> And that's great. . .I admire that. . . but if I pay money for your tale, and find that it's too hard to read because of poor grammar/spelling/formatting. . . .I, as a reader and consumer, am not going to be happy. So, by all means. . .get that story down on paper. . . .but PLEASE, if you know that the mechanics are not your strong point, get someone (or several someones) to do some proofreading for you!


Agreed.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

tbrookside said:


> There are 630000 titles in the Kindle Store.


not to quibble too much, but today's totals are 668,791

http://www.amazon.com/Books-Kindle/b/ref=amb_link_85650291_43?ie=UTF8&node=154606011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=0W9DSC1HBZ2A6PAZCGN9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1271837542&pf_rd_i=1286228011


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Quibbler.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I've said this all along, and I'll say it again.
> 
> Readers may not be able to tell you technical issues with a book, passive voice or whatever, but they do know when something isn't working. And they won't buy the books that drip crap out of every electronic orifice. Those books are not selling. I promise.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. Awesome.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

Ladies, Ladies, Ladies (and gentlemen too)....    Go read the free preview of "The Sword and the Dragon by M.R. Mathias" I am not selling here I am asking you to please check out the free preview and let me know if what I have written qualifies as "Turn off Grammar"  - "To you as a purchaser"  I wrote the whole 700,000 word Trilogy all at once, and in long hand. Then I had to use voice to text software to get it into MSWord.    I am just now getting to where I can type...lol    and if you have priced editing then you know that a 235,000 manuscript is like paying for three ordinary "book store length" titles.                                  
    Book one is 700 pages long so the amazon free preview is 70 pages long, and I would love to hear your input as to what I can do to make it better.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Grierson Huffman said:


> 是的。


Grierson. Thanks. The actuially Chinese characters appeared on my Blackberry that you agreed with me. So it isn't a private convo, I had said above _Tao de Mei-guo, shr bu shr _ - The American Way, right? and Grierson answer (using the character set that doesn;t appear here on my work machine). _Shr de! _ Right!

Xie xie, Grierson _Xien-sheng._

Edward C. Patterson
_Sung Ti-di_


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Grierson. Thanks. The actuially Chinese characters appeared on my Blackberry that you agreed with me. So it isn't a private convo, I had said above _Tao de Mei-guo, shr bu shr _ - The American Way, right? and Grierson answer (using the character set that doesn;t appear here on my work machine). _Shr de! _ Right!
> 
> Xie xie, Grierson _Xien-sheng._
> 
> ...


To which I say, in my native tongue, "Ayuh!"


----------



## Linda Ash (Jul 13, 2010)

AnnaM said:


> The other story (Witch of Starmont) has no reviews, and the tags are chick lit, fantasy, suspense and women's fiction. I'm confused by those tags, as I equate chick lit with something light and humorous -- but then the description reads more like women's fiction/romance, with only one obstacle to the romance (the mean secret-wielding ex-husband?).


Other people put the chick lit and the suspense tags up there, and as for the reviews, well I ain't gonna write my own, tempting as that may be 

But, wow! I'm gonna have to work on my product description and get it up to your speed. Your version was _definitely_ more interesting than mine.

And I'm sitting on my hands until the holidays when I hope the Christmas story will be in vogue


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

If there is over 600,000 titles on amazon I am in the top 6% of sales.......   and since I have no editor, or publisher, and I cant even figure out how to get my book covers to show up in these posts, I am not sure how that is possible?   "The Sword and the Dragon" has only been live on Amazon for twelve days and is available no where else.  Surely there are more titles than that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> If there is over 600,000 titles on amazon I am in the top 6% of sales....... and since I have no editor, or publisher, and I cant even figure out how to get my book covers to show up in these posts, I am not sure how that is possible? "The Sword and the Dragon" has only been live on Amazon for twelve days and is available no where else. Surely there are more *Tittles *than that.


You were just one typo away from having a very provocative post.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> You were just one typo away from having a very provocative post.


Thanks. Thank god for the edit button in here!


----------



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

I'm with those who don't believe there's a problem. Readers sort things out for themselves just fine. I do it myself as a reader. Anything that sounds interesting I send a Sample to my Kindle, and I zap bunches of them somewhere before the end of the Sample and never get the book. It's not like it's some big effort, and Samples are great bed time reading - no chance of ending up reading all night; they're a great size. It's not as if I have to go through a pile of 20 physical books. Ereading really is a game changer.

I also believe that it's mostly those traditionally published who see this as a problem, and their real concern isn't for readers but themselves. They see us pure indies as a threat for one reason or another. Lee himself has stated in this thread he is afraid our drek is going to affect the perception of his priceless prose. I sympathize because I may be the only indie who feels this way, but I don't cheer every sign that more and more traditionally published authors are hurrying to get their backlists out for Kindle at $2.99. I fear that they are going to kill the one wedge pure indies have had to get off the ground - low price - and they may actually get readers to pay attention to their constantly tooting their own horns as superior because they've been "vetted" by the traditional industry. So I see some conflict of interest between the pure indie and the mixed indie, and of course threads like this play it up instead of down.

As to the original provocation for this thread though, I just see him as foolish. He's sitting there, unpublished, unhappy and resentful and continuing to do the same thing about it over and over.  Isn't there some wise saying about how stupid it is to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result?


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> A group of vampires takes over a spaceship that is supposed to take some holy relics to a museam in the Andromeda system. But shortly after they kill the crew, they fall into a worm hole and have no idea where they are. Now they have to find their way home, and fast, because the ship's stores aren't exactly set up for the undead, and every day they get hungrier and hungrier.


I knew I shouldn't have told you the plot line to my next book....


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> As to the original provocation for this thread though, I just see him as foolish. He's sitting there, unpublished, unhappy and resentful and continuing to do the same thing about it over and over. Isn't there some wise saying about how stupid it is to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result?


It is "Crazy, or Insane" to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. That is the gist (jist? lol) of the saying you were after.

and I as a reader dont really care if I hit a bad edit or two in a read. Ive found them in James Patterson, and Robert Craise, and dozens of other "big wig" books.

but to be honest i've read some Indie stuff that is just plain bad. Sort of like the beginning of American Idol........


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> Ladies, Ladies, Ladies (and gentlemen too).... Go read the free preview of "The Sword and the Dragon by M.R. Mathias" I am not selling here I am asking you to please check out the free preview and let me know if what I have written qualifies as "Turn off Grammar" - "To you as a purchaser" I wrote the whole 700,000 word Trilogy all at once, and in long hand. Then I had to use voice to text software to get it into MSWord. I am just now getting to where I can type...lol and if you have priced editing then you know that a 235,000 manuscript is like paying for three ordinary "book store length" titles.
> Book one is 700 pages long so the amazon free preview is 70 pages long, and I would love to hear your input as to what I can do to make it better.


It's a thread derailment, but since you asked...

A quick skim... the word 'suddenly' jumped out at me. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I blogged about it here: http://victorinewrites.blogspot.com/2010/05/adverbs-are-they-that-terrible.html (I suggest doing a quick "Find" in word for the word "suddenly." If this is the only one in the entire 700,000 words, you can leave it in. If not, please oh please get rid of them all... except ONE if you have to. I'll allow you to keep one if you're going to die without it.)

I saw a few other adverbs I might suggest killing. (You don't have to kill all adverbs, but read my blog post, some can be taken out or reworded for a tighter read.)

I'd suggest killing the prologue and getting right to it. For me, the prologue did nothing to entice me... and I didn't care for the distanced POV. Could just be me though. I'd rather see the villain put the poison in a third person limited POV. If that needs to be told first, do it in the first chapter. But I admit I'm a prologue hater, so ignore me if you want.

Now, for a quick assessment... I didn't see a TON of problems. No grammar issues or spelling issues as I skimmed. The small stuff can be tweaked. I like that you didn't start out with a long boring explanation of your world, or back story. I like the climbing in the first chapter, you start with action and that's good IMHO.

For a line-by-line critique, I suggest putting your first chapter up on Critiquecircle.com. I'll be happy to critique it, just let me know it's up, and you'll get some other input as well.

Vicki


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> There are 630000 titles in the Kindle Store.
> 
> Total.
> 
> ...


And I say it again: there is more to the book universe than Kindle. There may be only 630000 Kindle titles. But there are how many millions of print books listed on Amazon? Somehow this discussion has become a defense of Kindle only authors, which are really a small percentage of the overall self-publishing industry, as opposed to a discussion of self-pub in general. The author of the original article used Amazon as an example, not as the ultimate-end-all-be-all of the universe.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

rjkeller said:


> To which I say, in my native tongue, "Ayuh!"


Now, Kel, which language is that.

And BTW, 630,000 books is nothing. New titles for the top 92 countries can be found here: (BTW, I'm astounded that there were only 5 new titles in Nigeria and count myself lucky).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year

I believe that the total books in some publishable form (everything from paper, bamboo and silk) in Chinese is something like 25 million. I wonder how many of them would pass muster. 

(Amazon has 7 million paperbacks alone).

Ed Patterson


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

M.R. Mathias said:


> Ladies, Ladies, Ladies (and gentlemen too).... Go read the free preview of "The Sword and the Dragon by M.R. Mathias" I am not selling here I am asking you to please check out the free preview and let me know if what I have written qualifies as "Turn off Grammar" - "To you as a purchaser" I wrote the whole 700,000 word Trilogy all at once, and in long hand. Then I had to use voice to text software to get it into MSWord. I am just now getting to where I can type...lol and if you have priced editing then you know that a 235,000 manuscript is like paying for three ordinary "book store length" titles.
> Book one is 700 pages long so the amazon free preview is 70 pages long, and I would love to hear your input as to what I can do to make it better.


Who are you calling a gentleman. In some quarters I'm address as Her Royal Highness (in others as


Spoiler



made you look, he he he.)



Edward C. Patterson


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

You've heard of the Never Ending Story? This is the Never Ending Argument. When a traditional industry goes through a revolution, guardians of the traditional will badmouth the new. Revolutionaries will blast the old guard. When the dust settles everyone will regard the new as normal.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And I say it again: there is more to the book universe than Kindle. There may be only 630000 Kindle titles. But there are how many millions of print books listed on Amazon? Somehow this discussion has become a defense of Kindle only authors, which are really a small percentage of the overall self-publishing industry, as opposed to a discussion of self-pub in general. The author of the original article used Amazon as an example, not as the ultimate-end-all-be-all of the universe.


I'm doing that because in the 2010 context ereaders have been offered up as a unique threat to literature due to the ease of publication, with the Kindle singled out for particular disdain because it dominates the market right now and its platform has been particularly friendly to self-publishers.

Sure, self-publishing is not new, but the litany of woe coming from the ranks of the traditionally published [and those who hope to eventually be traditionally published] is fairly new, and to the extent that it's getting worse almost by the hour now it's due to the Kindle more than anything else.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I'm doing that because in the 2010 context ereaders have been offered up as a unique threat to literature due to the ease of publication, with the Kindle singled out for particular disdain because it dominates the market right now and its platform has been particularly friendly to self-publishers.
> 
> Sure, self-publishing is not new, but the litany of woe coming from the ranks of the traditionally published [and those who hope to eventually be traditionally published] is fairly new, and to the extent that it's getting worse almost by the hour now it's due to the Kindle more than anything else.


I agree, it is due to the Kindle. That's where people are actually selling their work and getting noticed. That's what the fuss is all about. So you're right.

And maybe the millions of self-published authors out there haven't discovered the Kindle DTP yet. Personally I don't care if they do. Go for it, I say.

Vicki


----------



## ReeseReed (Dec 5, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Well, in that case, send your story submissions my way. I have a razor tongue, if you believe some of the disgruntled authors that have whined about my rejection letters on their blogs. I consider each and every one a badge of honor. Really.
> 
> But seriously, that is exactly where the small presses and periodical markets come into play. Like I said, a lot of folks want to jump straight to novel. But a great many "first time novelists" built rather substantial credentials publishing shorter stories first. And those publishing credits make it easier to sell the bigger projects. Harper & Row aren't going to send out a personalized rejection letter. Smaller literary journals and botique presses will.
> 
> Having read your book, I think your problem was publishers being afraid to touch the subject matter. Yours is exactly the type of book that probably would play well with the editor at a small college press or an edgy micro-press, but would scare the crap out of an editor from a big publishing house. But I also don't list you in with those that stop working at their craft. Its obvious you do and that you care about your product.


What type of material do you look for submission wise? Do you offer a critique, or is this something you only do for work that is submitted to you for publishing?


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Linda Ash said:


> Other people put the chick lit and the suspense tags up there, and as for the reviews, well I ain't gonna write my own, tempting as that may be
> 
> But, wow! I'm gonna have to work on my product description and get it up to your speed. Your version was _definitely_ more interesting than mine.
> 
> And I'm sitting on my hands until the holidays when I hope the Christmas story will be in vogue


Linda,

Thanks. I think a bit o' tweaking goes a long way on the product descriptions. I try to learn from the successful product pages, but sometimes the reason a book sells is a complete mystery to me. Good luck with your sales!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Whatever you feel about indies, I think we can all agree on one thing:  Lee sure knows how to stir up Kindleboards.  Nine pages already!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Grierson. Thanks. The actuially Chinese characters appeared on my Blackberry that you agreed with me. So it isn't a private convo, I had said above _Tao de Mei-guo, shr bu shr _ - The American Way, right? and Grierson answer (using the character set that doesn;t appear here on my work machine). _Shr de! _ Right!
> 
> Xie xie, Grierson _Xien-sheng._
> 
> ...


Ha! So I was almost right, when I saw what you wrote and thought "the Way of the Beautiful Fruit?" (I forgot that Mei-Guo sounds like aMeriCa to the Chinese.)

Camille


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

DArenson said:


> Whatever you feel about indies, I think we can all agree on one thing: Lee sure knows how to stir up Kindleboards. Nine pages already!


Agreed!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

It's interesting the assumptions and perceptions that crop up when there is a big shift like this.

I have to say I honestly don't think that the traditionalists are dissing us because they're jealous.  Really, honest.  And it sure isn't NEW.  This is the same thing that everybody in the traditional publishing industry has always said about self-publishing.  The difference is that they used to be right.

All they see that has changed is that suddenly self-publishing is not expensive, so they imagine more of the same exploding into huge overwhelming numbers.  What they don't take into consideration is the number of non-delusional people who did not self-publish before because they were practical enough to assess the costs and chances of success.  

But I really don't see jealousy there at all. I just see people who haven't adjusted their views to the new reality.

Camille


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Another point-of-view, again not my own, from former-editor-turned-novelist Richard Wheeler. (http://richardswheeler.blogspot.com/2010/08/something-to-say.html).

"There is much ado about the skill levels of the self-published on other web logs, and debate is largely polarized between those who think the self-published lack a basic command of the novelist's art and craft, and those who think that many self-published have these abilities. The latter are quick to point out that many commercially published novelists lack those draftsman skills themselves. There are so many exceptions that it is hard to generalize on the subject. I've read and endorsed beautifully written self-published work. It is also true that I've attempted to plow through scores of self-published novels that would have been instantly rejected by any commercial house.

Let's tackle this from an entirely different perspective. There seems to be many thousands of people who wish to be writers, who wish to be novelists, but who have nothing to say. What they lack is not so much a draftman's ability to fashion a novel, but those fruits of the mind that make their work unique and compelling..."

Your thoughts?


----------



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

LeeGoldberg said:


> *There are so many exceptions that it is hard to generalize on the subject*. I've read and endorsed beautifully written self-published work. It is also true that I've attempted to plow through scores of self-published novels that would have been instantly rejected by any commercial house.


Now that is something I can strongly agree with.

David Dalglish


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Oh, and Miss Hocking has sold over 10,000 books as an indie author in just a few months. Maybe I should have put the 10,000 in quotes?
> 
> Just sayin'.


I would argue that Miss Hocking is an exception and far from the rule when it comes to self-published, Kindle sales. Even your far more modest sales are, from what I have heard browsing this board and others, is the exception rather than the rule.

And yes, I do put "indie" in quotes because I think it's a silly term and a false distinction (nearly as cringe-inducing as calling yourself "pre-published"). What you're saying is that you're self-published... which you don't want to say, because there is a stigma attached. Why is there a stigma attached? Because so much of what is self-published is horrendously awful and you, and anyone else calling themselves "indie," don't want to be associated with that. You want to reboot the image and I don't blame you.

I have a much better word to call yourself.

How about simply: author.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> It just seems like he keeps beating the Indies Suck drum over and over again and frankly, I'm beginning to find it more than a little insulting.


Actually, I thought Bryon assailing readers was a new pov I hadn't heard before... and one I don't agree with. I honestly only posted his blog to stir a thoughtful and interesting discussion and, with one or two barbs thrown at me, it has been.

I know how you feel, David. I am not mentioning these blogs to insult you. But denying that the negative view/stigma of self-published work is out there is hiding from the truth and a real issue (calling yourself "indie" doesn't make it go away). The question now is, what can self-published authors do to combat that persistent perception one, which I argue, has more than a little truth to it? I don't have the answer. Perhaps, through reasoned and thoughtful discussion, and by considering even the POVs we don't agree with, we can come up with something.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

DArenson said:


> Whatever you feel about indies, I think we can all agree on one thing: Lee sure knows how to stir up Kindleboards. Nine pages already!


Not only that, but 1900 views. As I said, I thought it was a blog post that would provoke a lively discussion and it certainly has! And I think that's a good thing.

Lee


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Just because Lulu has a million users doesn't mean there are a million people commercially selling their wares. How many of those people never even finished their work? How many just made a family history book or cookbook or something they made just for themselves (or maybe their immediate family)?

Sure, it's easier than ever to put something up for sale on Amazon through DTP or CS. But it's not like sending an email. There's formatting and research to find out in the first place and hopefully some editing and cover design. Most people don't have the time to do the research and figure out how to do it or make their own cover and do their own formatting. And most won't spend the money to have it done professionally, especially if they're not pretty confident of their work.

So, maybe 99% of self-pubbed stuff really is crap. Fine. Maybe 50% of the commercially-available stuff (on Amazon, for example) is crap. And maybe 10-20% of the stuff you'd actually find on Amazon because it's selling more than a handful of copies is crap.

So what's the big deal? 5-10% of trad-pubbed stuff must be crap. So I spend $0.99 or $2.99 and have a 10-20% chance of crap, or $12.99 and have a 5% chance of crap. Sounds about right. And if I read a sample, my odds get way better than just throwing darts. I just don't see the huge problem.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

I've never blamed the Stephen Kings of the world for my sales or lack thereof -- I don't think people are buying his stuff instead of mine. And I've never blamed the drek of the world for my sales or lack thereof -- I don't think it's scaring anyone away from my stuff. So I don't see a problem.

There's nothing we (as authors) can do to stop clueless hacks from publishing stuff. It's not even our job. It's our job to write the best books we can. It's the readers' jobs to weed them out. And I think they do a pretty good job of it. Some readers _want_ that responsibility (and freedom to find diamonds in the rough), and some gladly take the responsibility as tradeoff for getting books for $2.99 instead of $12.99.

I get where some of you are coming from that we should "self-regulate," and I've never been one to read crap and say, "That's great, go publish it!" If someone asks us for feedback, of course we should be honest. We shouldn't post fake reviews praising junk or stuff we haven't even read. Beyond that, I just vote like any other reader: if something looks like crap, I don't buy it and don't tell others to buy it. If almost everyone agrees with me, then there's no problem. It _is_ a self-regulated system, just regulated by readers, not authors or publishers.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Can't we all just... you know... get along?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Let's tackle this from an entirely different perspective. There seems to be many thousands of people who wish to be writers, who wish to be novelists, but who have nothing to say. What they lack is not so much a draftman's ability to fashion a novel, but those fruits of the mind that make their work unique and compelling..."
> 
> Your thoughts?


I taught writing for years, and I've watched a lot of people come and go... and I'm not sure it's the "fruits of the mind" (i.e. "something to say") that's the problem. I mean, it's an eternal debate about what "it" is. Or what talent is.

I really believe that there are some people who are writers, talent or not. There are some people who just write, it's what they are and what they do. They may or may not be professional about it, but success or failure is irrelevant to whether they do it or not.

And I have to assume those people have something to say, even if they don't have anything to say to me, or the majority of others. But the simple persistence of their message makes me think there is probably an audience for it somewhere. And they might as well find that audience. And usually if you have somebody who sticks at it for that long, they get better, and their message matures, so they usually find a wider audience eventually too.

I do think that the majority of those who will never "make it" though, are those who like the idea of writing, like the idea of having written a book, but it isn't really a lifestyle - and when they don't succeed, they'll give up.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> And yes, I do put "indie" in quotes because I think it's a silly term and a false distinction (nearly as cringe-inducing as calling yourself "pre-published"). What you're saying is that you're self-published... which you don't want to say, because there is a stigma attached.
> 
> I have a much better word to call yourself.
> 
> How about simply: author.


I don't care if someone calls me "self-published." There is more to the connotations of that than just the stigma, though, and I don't call myself that for other reasons.

It's odd because I have two mutually exclusive reactions to "indie" and "self-published." I like the term indie because when I'm publishing, I don't think of myself as an author. I think of myself as a publisher. (That's my main reason for getting into this. I have nothing against traditional publishing. I just like the business of publishing.) But when I think of myself as an author, I don't like to use either term, because the connotations of "self-published" to me is someone with boxes and boxes of physical books, and mailing lists and, well, you know, all those _publisher_ things.

So I'm an indie because I'm a publisher, but I'm not self-published because I'm not _that kind_ of publisher.... But neither is relevant to my status as a writer.

Camille


----------



## J.R. Chase (Jun 22, 2010)

"Indie" is shorter than "self-published" so it gets the nod.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> Ha! So I was almost right, when I saw what you wrote and thought "the Way of the Beautiful Fruit?" (I forgot that Mei-Guo sounds like aMeriCa to the Chinese.)
> 
> Camille


Yes, it's a bit phonetic but also _Mei _ mean beautiful - _guo_ (pronounced gwo) means country or kingdom. So England is _Ying-guo_; France - _Fa-guo_, Germany - _Da-guo_, from Deutsch - but Japan is _Erh-pen _ (ar-ben), the source of the sun or the sunrise - and the Portuguese transliterated it as Jih-pen, where the west gets Japan. _Chung-guo _ is the word for China - central country or Middle Kingdon, basically the Center of the World. 

Now you may say that this is all not OT, but this discussion is about POV - Point of View, of which everyone has their own and their own axe to grind. And this discussion reminds me of many instances of the circular discussion undertaken by many Imperial conclave. Vital and yet a ten digit exercise in futility. It also brings to mind a discussion at my local activist meeting when we tried to determine the color for the bunting on the Gay Pride float. At least one group was unhappy, while the other refused to march in the parade, but not before letting the air out of the tires.

Edward Whatever


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Now that is something I can strongly agree with.
> 
> David Dalglish


Can I third that emotion?


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

@ Victorine - Your critique was helpfull and I am sorry for the derailment, but alot of this post is a foriegn language lesson.   I guess that since you didnt hate it that it is pretty good for a first time indie writer with no experience.  I am selling copies. And I like that I have no one to answer to but the readers.  I do wish I had a professional editor though.  Not because I think my work is all that bad, but because I like to wrire, not edit, and sell.  I see these guys with 5 or 6 books all posted on thier threads, the fancy book covers, and the wit, and it makes me wonder what really sells a book.  All of that seems sort of desperate to me.  Overkill is the word I think I am looking for. I'll take your advice though and post a chapter in the critique section.  Thanks again for the look at what I've done.     A hundred years from now my book "The Sword and the Dragon" will still be selling well, just because of the title alone.  The story is solid and the editing can and will be perfected over time, just by proxy.  Its the kind of book that only gets better with age.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Editing, making book covers, marketing...that's all part of self-publishing. If those are things you don't want to do, you should probably consider either going the traditional route or, if you want to be independent, hiring out for those services.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> Editing, making book covers, marketing...that's all part of self-publishing. If those are things you don't want to do, you should probably consider either going the traditional route or, if you want to be independent, hiring out for those services.


read the end of the post above yours. The Sword of Shannara is awful in comarison to David Eddings, Gearge R.R. Martin and Fiest, but up until the LOTR movies came out it was the best selling fantasy book of all time. Why? The title alone. It sounds like a cool book. Shakespeare didnt have a fancy cover. I think it was originaly plain leather bound, if that. To sell in the "now" requires those things. To sell forever you need a title and a great story. Those two things alone will transcend everything in the digital world. 
"The Sword and the Dragon - Book one of the Wardstone Trilogy"
"Kings, Queens, Heroes, and Fools - Book two of the Wardstone Trilogy"
"The Wizard and the Warlord - Book Three of the Wardsyone Trilogy"

Dont they just sound cool. LOL Yup They do! I do have to agree RJkeller that I should hire an editor, but it isnt cheep to edit 700 page novels.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I am new to kindle and new to KindleBoards. I just put up a collection of short stories, some have been previously published, most have not--I'm excited to find a place to put my work up. As a writer of fiction (or what I call true fiction) I realize how difficult getting published can be, and I appreciate having a forum in which I can offer my words and thoughts to readers. HOW FREEING!


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

M.R. Mathias said:


> read the end of the post above yours. The Sword of Shannara is awful in comarison to David Eddings, Gearge R.R. Martin and Fiest, but up until the LOTR movies came out it was the best selling fantasy book of all time. Why? The title alone. It sounds like a cool book. Shakespeare didnt have a fancy cover. I think it was originaly plain leather bound, if that. To sell in the "now" requires those things. To sell forever you need a title and a great story. Those two things alone will transcend everything in the digital world.
> "The Sword and the Dragon - Book one of the Wardstone Trilogy"
> "Kings, Queens, Heroes, and Fools - Book two of the Wardstone Trilogy"
> "The Wizard and the Warlord - Book Three of the Wardsyone Trilogy"
> ...


 Hmm the Shannaea series is one of my favorite book series. I'm surprised you say it is awful. Some of Eddings work I like, and I do read Martins. But I's have to say Jordan is far better with his Wheel of time then the Game of Thrones. Feist riftwar saga, another one of my favorites, but in my opinion Shannara is right there with everyone except maybe Jordans work. Just had to be said.


----------



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

tbrookside said:


> In the entire Fantasy section in the Kindle Store, 63 titles have been added in the last 30 days.


Not necessarily so. I was dismayed when none of my books seemed to make the New Release section. I emailed DTP for the first two and they appeared. On my second e-mail, I asked what I was doing wrong, but DTP never replied to me. The third time it happened, I wrote in again and here was the response:

Hello Douglas,

The titles currently enlisted under the "New Release" section, were published through a different platform (other than DTP), which no longer accepts new publishers.

Due to the large volume of books that enter through DTP each day, we're unable to market or display specific titles at the request of the publisher. However, I'll certainly have your concern raised as a feedback to the appropriate department, for them to consider and look into, as we plan for further improvements.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Thanks for understanding.

Best regards,

Karthik Sundar

So, if the above is correct, we indie publishers aren't making it onto the New Release lists. Thus, the number of new Fantasy books is likely above 63. The number of New Release (30 day) Science Fiction is 59, but that doesn't include my latest, which hasn't and won't make the list.


----------



## rscully (Jun 5, 2010)

We are in a new era, those who wish to publish, can! I love it! Readers will make the decision, the "Publisher" middleman if you will, are very nervous. Our sales are growing, people like what they see and are buying. If I read correctly in another post, Ebooks actually sold more in June than Hardcover, not sure how many of these were our "Indie" books, but I'm sure we were a big part of it (Correct me if I'm wrong on this or add if you know more facts)

I say there is absolutely no harm in any one of us trying, why not? There is also nothing stopping us from submitting our work to "Real" Publishers in the meantime. If it is more of the same rejection or you have to be famous responses, we have done everything possible and are published in one form or the other. I'm quite sure a successful bestselling Indie would be quickly scooped up, if any big house notices them and their sales. It is all about numbers, good business. 

Hey, good luck to everyone, all the best and no matter what others say, keep writing!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> @ Victorine - Your critique was helpfull and I am sorry for the derailment, but alot of this post is a foriegn language lesson. I guess that since you didnt hate it that it is pretty good for a first time indie writer with no experience. I am selling copies. And I like that I have no one to answer to but the readers. I do wish I had a professional editor though. Not because I think my work is all that bad, but because I like to wrire, not edit, and sell. I see these guys with 5 or 6 books all posted on thier threads, the fancy book covers, and the wit, and it makes me wonder what really sells a book. All of that seems sort of desperate to me. Overkill is the word I think I am looking for. I'll take your advice though and post a chapter in the critique section. Thanks again for the look at what I've done. A hundred years from now my book "The Sword and the Dragon" will still be selling well, just because of the title alone. The story is solid and the editing can and will be perfected over time, just by proxy. Its the kind of book that only gets better with age.


The more eyes proofing a book the better, IMHO. I got some great proofreaders at critiquecircle.com. They did a great job, I highly recommend it and it's free! Just costs you some time critiquing others. Which is great because you learn from that too.

Vicki


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

Sharlow said:


> Hmm the Shannaea series is one of my favorite book series. I'm surprised you say it is awful. Some of Eddings work I like, and I do read Martins. But I's have to say Jordan is far better with his Wheel of time then the Game of Thrones. Feist riftwar saga, another one of my favorites, but in my opinion Shannara is right there with everyone except maybe Jordans work. Just had to be said.


Im not saying I didnt like it. Im saying that it was just what it was. In tribute, one of the wizardly cronies in my trilogy is named Flick. My point was that the title: "The Sword of Shanarra" sounds cool and is easy to remember, and it will allways be. The Elfstones seemed like the exact same story told again with a few minor twists. Thus the mantra "If its nice do it twice" lol Im not knocking the guy. He is a master, but as a story The Sword of Shanara was "in my grammar-lacking opinion" plain.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

They used to use alot of paper in offices too, but silicon and binary code have eliminated the need for it.  Recycling is still a growing practice and there is no longer a "Need" for the book in physical form.  Imagine the money the big publishers will save just by downloading the text books to HS and College students.  And for the student.... He/she will have the whole selection in one slim Kindle.  No more lugging book bags and back-paks.  It is the future.  No, I dont think I want to jump in that sinking ship, especially when I see the "published" guys on here pushing their product just like me.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I know how you feel, David. I am not mentioning these blogs to insult you. But denying that the negative view/stigma of self-published work is out there is hiding from the truth and a real issue (calling yourself "indie" doesn't make it go away).


Fair enough, Lee. And while I stand by my earlier statements, I should note that I was more than a little tired and cranky this morning. Happens to the best of us.

You are right, of course. There_ is_ a stigma attached to self publishing. But honestly, I have no idea what to do about it except to keep trying my best to write books that don't fit that mold. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. But one thing I promise you, I work very hard on each and every book I write. Are there lazy writers out there who slap together whatever claptrap they figure sounds good and puts it out for sale? You betcha! But I ain't one of 'em. And several otehr people who have commented in this thread don't fit that description, either.

I think Julie (bardsandsages) might be on to something when she says we should be less polite when leaving reviews.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Not necessarily so. I was dismayed when none of my books seemed to make the New Release section. I emailed DTP for the first two and they appeared. On my second e-mail, I asked what I was doing wrong, but DTP never replied to me. The third time it happened, I wrote in again and here was the response:
> 
> Hello Douglas,
> 
> ...


Mine's there, it's a DTP title and I didn't do anything special to make it appear.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

It's possible we're not talking about the same Amazon section.

I'm talking about sections like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_3?rh=n%3A133140011%2Cn%3A%21133141011%2Cn%3A154606011%2Cn%3A157028011%2Cn%3A157060011%2Cp_n_date%3A1249101011%2Cn%3A157065011&bbn=157060011&ie=UTF8&qid=1281492624&rnid=157028011

or this one:

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1281492692/ref=sr_pg_2?ie=UTF8&bbn=157060011&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cn%3A%21133141011%2Cn%3A154606011%2Cn%3A157028011%2Cn%3A157060011%2Cp_n_date%3A1249100011&page=2


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Suzanne,

I love the cover of your book!

Lee


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

AnnaM said:


> I have the same reaction. Where is all this slush? I've judged the RWA annual contest. There are hundreds of romance submissions that never get published by mainstream publishers. I expected to see them all on Kindle -- but no. Are all those authors holding onto them and still hoping for a print contract? Are they on Kindle store, but ranked so low I never see them on search results?
> 
> I'm just not seeing the tsunami of self-published dreck that certain people keep ranting about. Where is it? I do see some very good indie work in the top 100 lists in various genres. Is it possible that the good stuff is already working it's way to the top? Is it possible that the reader vetting system works?
> 
> Also, if everyone is self-pubbing, shouldn't we be seeing new authors introducing themselves on this board every five minutes? Do we even get one or two new authors dropping in here a week?


So true. I'm seeing the same faces on all the boards. lol. I feel like I know all of you.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Woof. This thread went crazy. There's a lot here to take in and so these responses might seem a little random, but it all relates. I think a cool cover, a cool title, and good editing are part of the job. Indie writers who believe in the craft of writing need to work on this stuff. Either keep it simple (I chose a simple cover for my book because I'm not a drawer and I don't know any artists, but a simple or even austere cover design can work in your favor if you let it), farm out the work (there are plenty of people out there willing to edit for very little money or because they support you if you know where to look), or take the extra time (I recommend this. It's a great way to become a better writer). My first publication of "The Seven Sisters" was full of errors and I wish I'd spent more time with it. You can't argue that a better product isn't a better product or that clear language is less appealing than incomprehensible language. Well, you can, I suppose, and good luck proving an impossible point, but I think, personally, that it's a waste of time. Also, I respect Steven King quite a bit (a real writer almost has to admire his work ethic at least) and I think it's worth mentioning he started with a publisher called Vanity Press. I feel like there was something else I wanted to mention, but I'll stop because I feel like this has run a little long. Cheers!


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Have you guys heard of parallel play? I remember reading about in child development in high school, and every time this whole indie vs trad debate flares up again, I always think of it.
_
"Parallel play is a form of play where children play adjacent to each other, but do not try to influence one another's behavior. Parallel play usually involves two or more children in the same room. The children are interested in the same toys and both see the toy as belonging to them. The children do not play together, but alongside each other simply because they are in the same room."_

Isn't that exactly what we're doing here?

But on a semi-related note - I have only reviewed two KB authors and I have never exchanged a review. However, I know several KB members have read my book and reviewed it, and I'm hoping that it's authentic.

This is just a general shout-out to everyone: Please do not use kid-gloves on my reviews. I want to earn every review I get, from 1-star to the 5's. Giving undue to praise to any book, be it indie or otherwise, does not help anybody - not the book, not the author, and certainly not yourself.

Also, I've read on other threads that people are reluctant to give 1 or 2 star reviews to indie books. Saying nothing is the same as endorsing it. It also makes me worry that my success is fraudulent, that people are reading my book and hating it, and nobody's saying anything.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I want honest reviews - no matter what that ends up being.

Okay. Now I'm done talking about this forever. I think I have said everything I have to say on the subject.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

This is a good topic because it exposes the emotions of our participants. Lee, you did a great job of lighting this fire, I imagine, as you intended. I've been lurking since the beginning. I particularly enjoyed McAfee's responses because they come from the heart, about things that matter. This is good stuff. _Real_ talk, which I like. As well, I can relate to what David had to say. I too didn't dream up this stuff last Christmas. I've invested years in refining my work, and when he mentioned his wife left to watch TV while he banged on the keyboard, it reminded me that my obsession to write was a factor in my divorce some years back. As my first wife put it, "He had an affair--with _himself_." 'nuf said.

I didn't care for the blogger's opinion that our culture has degraded into "cheap, Walmart buying consumers who don't care about quality" (my impression of his words). That is a presumptuous generality. The last time I shopped at Walmart was to buy a folding utility table, not because it was cheap, rather because it was the only place I could find one. That was almost a year ago, and the product has served me well. I don't buy stereos, computers, books or even clothing or food at Walmart. I choose quality and I research products before buying them, of course with an eye on value (getting a good deal). That all, or even most Americans shop at Walmart (or equivalent), and are thus blind to "true" quality, is a presumptuous generality. Talk about head in the sand. Furthermore, when dining or out for drinks, I tip 20% unless the server is totally rude, even at venues I do not frequent. Those I do, I am treated like a king for obvious reasons. Not because I am wealthy; I am not. I appreciate their quality of service, and I imagine, they appreciate my quality of patronage. Everybody wins.

My next objection is the stupid reader thing. Another presumptuous generality, and more so, a failure of critical thinking. Let's say an "avid reader" is one who consumes a few books a month (which many readers in this group surely exceed). I know many people who qualify as avid readers. I also have drinking buddies who last read fiction when it was an assignment in High School. Let's compare the two. Not to say the drinking buddies are less intelligent--just different. They may be mechanics, engineers, programmers, all bright guys. They either don't have the time, or they simply don't care to read _fiction_, not their thing. However, the avid reader can't get enough. It's like food, and they're hungry. Not to say either one is more intelligent--just different--but when it comes to spelling and usage, the avid reader IS more intelligent about that particular subject if for no other reason than they've been exposed to a great deal of literature. Avid readers are not stupid, or have low standards of quality. However, in my experience (based on the avid readers I have known), they have an abundant supply of one other characteristic--forgiveness.

The typical avid reader seems to have a great ability to see past many problems with novels. They want to consume the story, and they will forgive a certain number of mistakes. It's like the difference between a fussy eater and one more tolerant. The sandwich wasn't supposed to have ketchup. The fussy eater will send it back to the kitchen. The tolerant one will scrape off the unwanted condiment and get to eating--they're hungry for the story. But when you open the bun and find a rat in your burger... well, you get the idea. I wouldn't bother sending it back to the kitchen. Find the door, fast. Call me a fussy eater all you want.

Back to presumptuous. The coin has two sides. There are posts in this thread that are presumptuous as well. Traditional publishing is jealous? Oh please. Threatened by indies? You don't know that, and I rather doubt the elephant is threatened by some flies. Come on, don't delude yourself, or fall into the same sort of ill-conceived presumptuous thinking that the blogger has handed us. Let what you don't know remain unknown. Don't guess about what is in the dark--either turn the light on or forget about it.

What we do know about traditional publishing is that it is a business far more than it is an endeavor to promote artistic expression (if it's that at all). Don't get all butt-hurt when they don't want your story. It means they don't see a way to sell it, and businesses have to sell things to, well, stay in business. The publishing business markets and sells very specific products because they sold well yesterday. That's not criticism. I market and sell very specific products because they sold well yesterday, too. Probably the same for wherever the rest of you go to work each day.

And the "gatekeeper" thing is getting worn out. It's not like traditional publishers have an agenda to suppress information. And they are not some ordained channel in which any book that is deemed worthy to exist shall pass through. They look for the most potential to make a profit, that's all. Duh. How complex does it need to be? Look at it this way: before Gutenberg, scribes in monasteries were making books as fast as they could (not very fast). Not everyone got to be an author. Movable type changed all that, and in little time, faster and better meant far more people could be authors, but still, not everybody. Then comes the digital age. Now everyone can be an author. A bad thing, some say? I say not. The more we share our views, the healthier we become as a species. Let everyone write (and encourage them to seek editing, yes). Some will be great, some not so great, but a forgiving reader many times will find enough entertainment to be satisfied. Or they might find an uplifting message. Every reader is a different person, with different tastes. There is no ultimate judge of which writing is worthy to appear in print, other than each reader, one story at a time. Let nature take its course. Natural selection, right? No need to worry.

I vote for a million fresh voices, with fresh ideas, characters, plots and resolutions. You never know what the next guy or gal might have to say. Let's hear it.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

> There are posts in this thread that are presumptuous as well. Traditional publishing is jealous? Oh please. Threatened by indies? You don't know that, and I rather doubt the elephant is threatened by some flies


I also think it's silly to think that traditional publishers are jealous or threatened, but I'd hesitate to describe them as "elephants".

Most small publishers, and many imprints at large publishers, have fewer employees and less gross sales than a McDonald's franchise in a decent location.

These are not large enterprises, and as a result the prestige they enjoy is largely a result of smoke and mirrors. I don't think they're "threatened" by indies as much as they are instinctively hostile to anything that threatens that precarious prestige.


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

William, that was a FANTASTIC post. Thanks.

I've been gone for a few days working on my newest book, but I will admit that I've lurked here and there while at my day job. I've watched this thread grow and have tried to keep up with it. To be honest, I don't much care what anyone else says about Indie/Self Published authors. Do I take offense to it? No, not really. The thing that concerns me more is the tendency for everyone to be so critical of everything. It's like we are all being expected to charge into battle and see how many pieces of cow manure we can find on the battlefield. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everybody hug and sing campfire songs, but really, why did you start writing? Was it to prove that you were better than someone else? For some of you maybe. I personally am tired of hearing how bad Dan Brown's writing sucks or Stephanie Meyer's writing is garbage. It starts to sound like a bunch of highschool teens hating on the prom queen simply because she won and you didn't. Now, you may honestly hate their writing, but I just don't get why people have to wave a flag saying "Yep, it sucked!" unless they are trying to be a part of an elitist clique.

As far as reviewing indie authors, I have reviewed several. I know Amanda just started a thread about reviews and I agree with her 100% in that I have one heck of a time writing them! I have done it for two indies and I will surely do it again. My reviews aren't the great ten paragraph rants on the literary greatness, or the lack thereof, that a lot of people seem to require in order for it to be "helpful". To be honest, I hate when the conversation of reviews comes up because there are so many review snobs out there that it makes getting one less fun. "Don't pay attention if they're in the same state, don't pay attention if it's another indie author, don't pay attention unless it's written without any emotion and reads like a term paper", it just gets old. It is hard enough for some of us to have the slightest level of self esteem and really, all we want to do is write a book. After the book is written then maybe, just maybe, someone will read it that will enjoy it.

I guess to close my rant, I'll say that I just wish people could do their thing, whatever that thing is, without being judged at every turn. I have absolutely no problem with people posting bad reviews as long as they are genuine and constructive, but I think dismissing a good review or questioning its motives simply because it was written by another Indie is selling a lot of people's work, as well as the integrity and character of our fellow authors, short.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

"Oh, don't the days seem lank and long,
When all goes right and nothing goes wrong;
And isn't your life extremely flat
When there's nothing whatever to grumble at."

- Gama Rex, _Princess Ida_
- *Sir William Schwenck Gilbert*

Edward C. Patterson
A Pooh-bah by any other name would smell as rank


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

ReeseReed said:


> What type of material do you look for submission wise? Do you offer a critique, or is this something you only do for work that is submitted to you for publishing?


We publish speculative fiction (fantasy, horror, sci-fi, etc). Our submission guidelines can be found here. if you do submit, just make sure to specifically ask for a critique. I've changed my guidelines recently because I got tired of flaming emails regarding my critiques (and yes, the people that whine about how I don't recognize their brilliance on their blogs). 

I also do Publisher Consultations, which is a "pay what you think its worth" service. Let us know what it is you need help with and what you feel comfortable paying, and we work with you to help you get your situation resolved.

http://www.bardsandsages.com/positivepublishing/authorservices.html


----------



## J.R. Chase (Jun 22, 2010)

Thanks JM!  Great thoughts.  I agree with you.  Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers are the best in the business and we should look up to them, not constantly call them 'garbage'.  They connect with (and sell to) millions of readers.  They know what they are doing.

I also read a lot of whinging here and it is tiring as hell.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

J.R. Chase said:


> Thanks JM! Great thoughts. I agree with you. Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers are the best in the business and we should look up to them, not constantly call them 'garbage'. They connect with (and sell to) millions of readers. They know what they are doing.
> 
> I also read a lot of whinging here and it is tiring as hell.


I look up to Stephen King...not Stephanie Meyers, sorry. He is proven over and over that he know how to do it. She hit a sweet spot in the market.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

J.R. Chase said:


> Thanks JM! Great thoughts. I agree with you. Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers are the best in the business and we should look up to them, not constantly call them 'garbage'. They connect with (and sell to) millions of readers. They know what they are doing.
> 
> I also read a lot of whinging here and it is tiring as hell.


I had to look up whinging  But I gave everyone _Tao de Mei-guo _ , so one foreign word deserves another. 

So would whining and dhining be whinging and dhinging? 

Miss Chatty
dhiamonds are a ghirl's best frhiend.


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

J.R. Chase said:


> Thanks JM! Great thoughts. I agree with you. Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers are the best in the business and we should look up to them, not constantly call them 'garbage'. They connect with (and sell to) millions of readers. They know what they are doing.
> 
> I also read a lot of whinging here and it is tiring as hell.


Thanks J.R. for the comment. I think that everyone is going to have a different opinion of who is the best in the business, and I actually respectfully disagree in that my opinion is that those two aren't necessarily the best, but I fully support the fact that to you they are. Have I read and enjoyed several of their books? ABSOLUTELY! I think the point to be made is that no one is going to have the same role model to look up to and I don't think it is productive to belittle an authors writing constantly. To me, those that are smashing or trashing the Brown's or the Meyer's type folks' writing are doing nothing different than the traditionally published folks are doing to the Indies. How boring would it be if we all wrote the same?



Bane766 said:


> I look up to Stephen King...not Stephanie Meyers, sorry. He is proven over and over that he know how to do it. She hit a sweet spot in the market.


That's awesome Bane and so do I. I have read many King books and have greatly enjoyed most of them, however there are some that I could barely continue with because things seemed to drag on forever with mindless details. The point is that you like and look up to King. J.R. likes and looks up to Brown and Meyer. Awesome for both of you, but it doesn't need to turn into a "Jacob vs. Edward" thing every time. (Sorry for the Twilight reference. I couldn't resist!  )

I can feel the I.T. guy looking over my shoulder now. Gotta go! Take care all!


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

J.M. Pierce said:


> William, that was a FANTASTIC post.


Thanks, J.M. Just speaking my mind.

I agree about the inordinate amount of criticism. Everyone else can search the battlefield for manure. Ha! I like that one. I suppose commercial work deserves the critical eye, but gee whiz, writing is art, too. Enjoy it or don't, and move along, regardless of how it gets published. The whole argument is hollow.

As for reviewing authors of fiction (of any league): I'm not into it, at least, in full public view. I'm not dumping on others who do it, just my personal hang-up. I like to think of my fellow authors, not only in this group but those far beyond, all as my colleagues, associates, and I would like to hope, my friends. To give an opinion of the stuff we both do is like asking your best friend what he thinks of your new girlfriend. "Sure, I'd do her. If you put a bag over her head." Potentially, a good way to lose friends. No offense to any of my friends here. If I review none of you, I'm being fair. Besides, authors trading reviews must look odd to our readers. Wouldn't you think? Maybe it's just me.

I did however participate in Victorine's 400-word critique thing, mainly because I found it to be a clever idea, and a great means to expose readers to unknown work. Not really a review, just a few comments on the opening words of our selected novel. Victorine remarks were brief and fair. Kind enough to present negatives in a positive manner, but not so kind as to be any sort of ego-stroking.

Reviews in general, I have lost some faith in, not only from comments in this group, but more so in others. The scorn given "good" reviews is sad. Sock-puppet, friends and family, author trading, all so cynical. I've had fans write to me, thrilled with the books, I mean, foaming at the mouth about how great my stuff is. Once upon a time I might have suggested they post a review. Not these days. I'll only set them up to look like sock-puppets. They may post at their own peril. So sad, but that's what happens when the system is abused. Still sad.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

"If I review none of you, I'm being fair. Besides, authors trading reviews must look odd to our readers. Wouldn't you think? Maybe it's just me."  

Good one, William.  I agree.  I'm uncomfortable with writers reviewing each other.  Imagine if Norman Mailer reviewed Gore Vidal, and vice versa?  Or did they?  I don't think so, but it would have bloody if it'd happened.

Best!


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

William Campbell said:


> If I review none of you, I'm being fair. Besides, authors trading reviews must look odd to our readers. Wouldn't you think? Maybe it's just me.


I'm with you William. Being from Kansas, I've accidentally stepped in enough manure in my life, I'm surely not going in search of it! 

William, I think that you and I are very much on the same page. I agree that authors trading reviews is a bad thing, but what if I purchased an Indie authors book (and I have purchased many), read it, completely enjoyed it and wanted to tell the world that it was a great read? Do I not have the right, even though I too am an author, to post my praise for someones work? I personally would never ask someone to review my book if I reviewed theirs. I would like to think that the vast majority of authors (at least the ones that participate on this forum) wouldn't be doing that either. Maybe I'm completely wrong, and if so that is very disappointing. I think I'm going to step away from this thread now. I've spoken my peace and honestly respect all opinions that have been shared here. My only wish is that everyone would respect those opinions as well and call it good.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I think the real problem with trying to police reviews for "friend" reviews is Facebook.

Just about every one of the people who reviewed my first book looked me up at Facebook and friended me.

Or they found out about my book in the first place because I friended them based on a mutual interest [writing, horror, ancient history, the Kindle] and then they saw some post on my Wall about the book.

This is not the same as having a drinking buddy of mine review the book. But people can search Facebook if they like, find my reviewers, and say, "AH HA!!!!!!! They are all your 'friends'!!!!!!!!!" Yeah, well - I friended Brian Keene too, but he has no idea who I am, I'm sure, and if I review one of his books the review certainly won't be suspect.


----------



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

If someone is so desperate to look me up on facebook to see if I am friends with some of the people who left me reviews...yeah...not going to weep if they choose not to buy my book.

David Dalglish


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

I've been dipping in and out of this thread, so I probably missed some very good points along the way, but one thing I stopped doing recently was engaging in arguments about the good vs. the bad of self-publishing.  It's a continuum, not an either/or.  It's not the right choice for every author.

I don't know if this varies from genre to genre, but in historical fiction there have been several now traditionally published and well-known authors who began by self-publishing.  So far in the HF circles, the only derogatory comments about self-publishing I've heard have come not from readers or established writers, but from as-yet-unpublished writers.  I've since figured out that it's not the best use of my time to convince them otherwise.

The real objective should just be to write the best stories we can and present them as professionally as possible. Not defend what we've chosen to do.  We all have our reasons why, but again, we write to be read.

As for reviewing other writers - many established authors review books they recommend, but they do so very selectively.  Also, how often do you pick up a book and on the front or back cover is a blurb from another author singing praises about the book?  Again, they're only going to do so for stuff they genuinely love and endorse.  I review for a team blog and am very picky about what I choose to read and write a review on.  If I can't honestly recommend the book to others, I don't review it myself, although someone else may choose to.  I'd certainly never ask anyone to review my book - whether or not they choose to do so is completely up to them.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

That's easy. I'm so old that all my family and friend have _reached the clearing at the end of the path _ (to quote King). Now I could count my fans as friends, but they came to me through my books and that's what the reviews are all about. As for Facebook, I'm surprised at the number of people who call me a friend there (my 3 family members are on it), but mostly they came on after the reviews. So everything is logically putting the horse after the cart. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> I think the real problem with trying to police reviews for "friend" reviews is Facebook.
> 
> Just about every one of the people who reviewed my first book looked me up at Facebook and friended me.
> 
> ...


I think that is a stretch. Most people are aware that Facebook is hardly a true list of real world friends. I've got over 250 "friends." Over half of them are people who only friended me because I play Facebook games (My Castle Age army is growing! lol)

The real problem is when Jane Doe posts a review of Sally Jones book, and the next day Sally Jones posts a review of Jane's book.

Of course, if people are simply transparent about their relationships, then it makes things easier. I don't review books by people who have reviewed my stuff. And if I review a book by someone I have a business relationship with, I will note it in the review. For example, when I reviewed this title  by David Lawrence, I included a disclaimer that Bards and Sages had previously published other works by David. My issues isn't really the fact that writers review other writers books per se, but more that they often present themselves as disinterested observers. If you state your relationship upfront, it adds credibility to your review because it shows you have nothing to hide. When people try to pretend they "discovered" this "new author" and heap on praise and the reader finds out later the reviewer and author are buddies, it leaves a sour taste and makes every other review on that author's book suspect.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> The real problem is when Jane Doe posts a review of Sally Jones book, and the next day Sally Jones posts a review of Jane's book.
> 
> My issues isn't really the fact that writers review other writers books per se, but more that they often present themselves as disinterested observers. If you state your relationship upfront, it adds credibility to your review because it shows you have nothing to hide. When people try to pretend they "discovered" this "new author" and heap on praise and the reader finds out later the reviewer and author are buddies, it leaves a sour taste and makes every other review on that author's book suspect.


I agree, and it is a challenge. I've been introduced to so many self-published authors whose books I subsequently go on to read and enjoy, and yet I hesitate to post reviews (even among those who have posted reviews of mine) because of the perception by others that it's a quid pro quo thing.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> If someone is so desperate to look me up on facebook to see if I am friends with some of the people who left me reviews...yeah...not going to weep if they choose not to buy my book.
> 
> David Dalglish


LOL! Tell me about it!


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

Stephen King will review any book for money!   Every major author writes reviews for the other authors that share an agent or a publisher. Its STANDARD PRACTICE in the big leagues. Why not do it in the minor leagues too?     A's for anybody who was offended by my earlier posts all I can say is:   "If the shoe fits wear it"     if it doesn't you then quit crying.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

rjkeller said:


> I agree, and it is a challenge. I've been introduced to so many self-published authors whose books I subsequently go on to read and enjoy, and yet I hesitate to post reviews (even among those who have posted reviews of mine) because of the perception by others that it's a quid pro quo thing.


My best online friend and I agreed not to post reviews of each others books. We named each other in our acknowledgements and wouldn't that look fishy? lol. I would love to review her though.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> Stephen King will review any book for money! Every major author writes reviews for the other authors that share an agent or a publisher. Its STANDARD PRACTICE in the big leagues. Why not do it in the minor leagues too? A's for anybody who was offended by my earlier posts all I can say is: "If the shoe fits wear it" if it doesn't you then quit crying.


As I have already noted, what you are talking about are *testimonials or blurbs*. These are not the same thing as a review. A blurb or testimonial is a marketing tool specifically sought by a publisher, and it is for the publisher's benefit. A review is suppose to be a nuetral third party critique of a book and it is for the reader's benefit. Please don't confuse the two because it just clouds the issue.

Part of the problem is that people use words differently in "indie" circles than they are used professionally, and it confuses matters. The difference between a testimonial and a review is one instance. The difference between a proofreader and an editor is another, as people constantly say editor or editing when they mean proofreader or proofreading. And I can't count the number of times someone has asked me to review their press release, only to end up reading advertorial copy.   We might be using the same words, but we are changing the meanings to suit our arguments, and then wondering why nobody understands.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

We write what we write. We own what we write. What surrounds what we write is mist. To every cucumber there is a belch. To every bean there is a fart. Aren't you glad you own the means consumed to produce the gas. The bean is food and reality. Opinion lingers, but then dissipate like gas. I'm glad I opened the window. 

Edward C. Patterson
An old


Spoiler



bean, what did you think I would say?


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> what did you think I would say?





Spoiler



Flaming fart, perhaps? (GRIN)



You're starting to make me laugh with your gag spoilers.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

That's my purpose when I see a miuch too serious discussion. The end is near when we take ourselves too seriously and eat too many beans.  BTW, I think it's a shame that we can't use emoicons in the spoiler tags. Now that's an important topic. 


Spoiler



GRIN



Ed Patterson


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> Stephen King will review any book for money! Every major author writes reviews for the other authors that share an agent or a publisher. Its STANDARD PRACTICE in the big leagues. Why not do it in the minor leagues too? A's for anybody who was offended by my earlier posts all I can say is: "If the shoe fits wear it" if it doesn't you then quit crying.


The difference is that Steven King does not squander his reputation with testimonials and blurbs on anything sub-par. His agent wouldn't even consider asking him to do so. (Because HE doesn't want King to squander his reputation either.)

And even if he did, he has some reputation to spare. Unknowns on the other hand, put themselves straight into negative reputation territory when they praise things that don't really deserve the praise. And at that point your reputation not only hurts you, it hurts those you praise.

Look, this is basic public relations. Unless your product is complete crap, then trading disingenuous reviews only hurts you and the person being reviewed. You are not helped by a disingenuous reviewer who will give a good review to just anybody. When you engage in that kind of behavior, you are telling the world that you think your work is crap.

This isn't some evil gatekeeper preventing you from finding your audience, it's just plain self-defeating behavior on the part of anyone engaging in it. You need to get reviews from people readers know they can TRUST. And if you want to give reviews, you need to BE someone the readers can trust.

Camille

Camille


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> The difference is that Steven King does not squander his reputation with testimonials and blurbs on anything sub-par. His agent wouldn't even consider asking him to do so. (Because HE doesn't want King to squander his reputation either.)
> 
> And even if he did, he has some reputation to spare. Unknowns on the other hand, put themselves straight into negative reputation territory when they praise things that don't really deserve the praise. And at that point your reputation not only hurts you, it hurts those you praise.
> 
> ...


What if I consider Stephen King subpar. Some of the blurbs or reviews he writes are in iffy and crappy books.... ps how do i get my cover pics to shrink?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> What if I consider Stephen King subpar. Some of the blurbs or reviews he writes are in iffy and crappy books.... ps how do i get my cover pics to shrink?


I think you missed my point entirely.

No matter what anybody else does, no matter if they are right or wrong, the contract is between you and the person who reads the review. If you recommend something that is subpar, you lose. Period. Because your reputation will be gone. If you do it several times, your reputation will be negative.

Your review is only worth something if the readers get a good experience out of it, and if they start to look for your reviews as something they can trust. You can only do that if you set standards and pick and choose. You can't do that if you trade reviews.

Like it or not, Stephen King's readers can trust his recommendations. You may not like his work, but they do. And the fact remains that he is not risking anything because he only blurbs works that are highly polished and professional work. These books meet his standards and those of his agent and publisher. You may not like his standards, but he has standards. He DOESN'T recommend anybody willy-nilly. The authors of those books can all spell. They have met the minimum requirements of not only King, but of his agent, and publisher, and that of the author.

Camille


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

If this post gets any longer we can publish it, sell it, and all contributors get a cut!
Ann


----------



## Ryan Pollard (Jul 26, 2010)

Eleven pages later and I learned that beans will make one fart. If only I read this earlier. It's going to be a long night...


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2010)

I know 2 or 3 hundred thousand people who can spell, but can not write a novel. And I know an old indian man who can tell you stories all night long that will blow your mind. He can't read or write. One has nothing to do with the other. 
My point was that I have read books that King, and J. Patterson, and several others have "blurbed" or "reviewed" as great, that sucked. Sure they were stories and edited, but that only makes it a book. That doesn't make it quality. If those authors stamp their name on something that they have not read, just because their editor or publisher asked them to then, according to you they have a bad reputation. 
Well Stephen King once said that he would write ANYBODY a good review for 20k. So your point is proven, and I relent. King has no integrety, thus his reputation is crap. By your theory every single person who reviewed "Twilight" as great and fantastic has no integrity and no character and no reputation.(that means every major review house is suspect now!) Because while all the words are spelled right, the story is as weak and as unoriginal as they come. On amazon I dont even read a review unless it says Verified Purchase. Anyway thanks for your time and I hope I spelled the words write...lol (that was sarcasm)



daringnovelist said:


> I think you missed my point entirely.
> 
> No matter what anybody else does, no matter if they are right or wrong, the contract is between you and the person who reads the review. If you recommend something that is subpar, you lose. Period. Because your reputation will be gone. If you do it several times, your reputation will be negative.
> 
> ...


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

I just wish I had a spare $20 thousand!


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

lol, PA

I wouldn't trade reviews, but when I do get my K3 in Oct I will be reading some of the people's on this boards books.  If I like them they will get a review...if not they prob won't.  I wouldn't post a negative review of ANYBODY's work regardless if they are indie or not.  It's too much work for just negativity, imo.


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Bane 766:

Have you signed up for the free troop program? Ask Ed Patterson for details.

Ann


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> Bane 766:
> 
> Have you signed up for the free troop program? Ask Ed Patterson for details.
> 
> Ann


I know all about it, thanks. I don't have an ereader...and only have a gov't computer so it's not possible . I think it's a wonderful thing, though


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

MR: 
Just so you know, most reputable 'pro' reviewers don't pay for the books they review. Also, most of my print books are purchased somewhere other than Amazon (in bookstores or directly from me at conventions). Many of my reviews reflect this--they do not say 'Amazon verified purchase' on them. You might be missing out on a great review by ignoring all from folks who obtained their books elsewhere. I can usually spot a (ahem) 'less insightful' review.

I happen to enjoy Stephen King's work...I think he's a wonderful storyteller with his own style. 'The Stand' and 'The Talisman' are epic in scope and implication. His style is different from mine, yet I appreciate his ability. If you don't care for him that's fine, but many, many people love his books (especially the older ones). He obviously struck a chord with readers worldwide. For that, you must give him due credit.

Editing is part of honing your craft. Your wonderful storyteller, who is following an oral tradition, does not need to be able to read or write. You, who are a writer, must write well--and that means your finished product must be polished and proficient!

Best of luck,
--Archer


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

archer said:


> Editing is part of honing your craft. Your wonderful storyteller, who is following an oral tradition, does not need to be able to read or write. You, who are a writer, must write well--and that means your finished product must be polished and proficient!


I just want to say excellent point, archer.

M.R. - your example about the old storyteller is flawed, for the very reason archer points out. Storytellers need to be able to tell a good story. _Writers_ need to be able to write well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> read the end of the post above yours. The Sword of Shannara is awful in comarison to David Eddings, Gearge R.R. Martin and Fiest, but up until the LOTR movies came out it was the best selling fantasy book of all time. Why? The title alone. It sounds like a cool book. Shakespeare didnt have a fancy cover. I think it was originaly plain leather bound, if that. To sell in the "now" requires those things. To sell forever you need a title and a great story. Those two things alone will transcend everything in the digital world.
> "The Sword and the Dragon - Book one of the Wardstone Trilogy"
> "Kings, Queens, Heroes, and Fools - Book two of the Wardstone Trilogy"
> "The Wizard and the Warlord - Book Three of the Wardsyone Trilogy"
> ...


Let's not drag the Bard into this. He had wealthy patrons that paid his bills. He didn't have fancy covers because at the time his work was not meant to be read, but performed.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Some authors will review first-timers as a favor. Piers Anthony read my manuscript when it was going to press, and wrote some very nice things about it, both on his blog and to me, personally, to use for promotion. What a swell guy he is!

Mystery writer Carol Davis Luce was/is my mentor, so she was happy to blurb my book. And she's an awesome writer.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

And I received a glowing 5 star from Victor Banis, author of over 250 books and a pioneer in the genre, a review that caught me off guard, but its a jewel in *The Jade Owl * crown on Amazon. Some traditional authors are generous beyond belief.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I saw these and LOVED them. I thought I would share.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Gotta love Zoe!  

She's got a series of them, actually, and they're all very funny.


----------



## zoewinters (Jun 18, 2009)

Thanks for the shout out! Yeah, there are 4 episodes up now on my youtube channel page. On Monday we meet Agent Broccoli.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Oh my God, Zoe, that You Tube video is hysterical!  I've got to go watch the rest.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

VERY funny and very good! I LOLed.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

M.R. Mathias said:


> King has no integrety, thus his reputation is crap. By your theory every single person who reviewed "Twilight" as great and fantastic has no integrity and no character and no reputation.


Look, you seem so busy trying to bash Stephen King that you miss the point entirely. This isn't about the behavior of Stephen King. This is about self-defeating behavior of Indie authors. I don't care if Stephen King IS selling his blurbs to the highest bidder, including stuff written by a random character generator. He's got reputation to spare. An unknown writer doesn't. And what the other guy does is a false argument in terms of whether YOU should do it.

Let's get off Stephen King and talk about those Twilight reviewers.

All those people who reviewed "'Twilight' as great and fantastic" do indeed have integrity - they genuinely love the book and others who love the book do indeed listen to them. Because they recommended it to people who love the book, those people will always trust their judgment. If they exhibit of pattern of recommending more books that those readers love, then they will do great good for the writers they recommend.

Do you get that? If you want to gain reputation, you should do like those Twilight reviewers and recommend those books you passionately LOVE, not just any book by someone who reviews you. Or by someone you happen to meet on line. Because you don't have a best selling novel to base your reputation on.

Have you got that? It hurts us to behave badly. It hurts best selling authors a lot less, because they have reputation to spare, and they're taking less risk in the first place, because what they're recommending has at least been vetted by multiple editors, and is up to professional standards if nothing else.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> I wouldn't trade reviews, but when I do get my K3 in Oct I will be reading some of the people's on this boards books. If I like them they will get a review...if not they prob won't. I wouldn't post a negative review of ANYBODY's work regardless if they are indie or not. It's too much work for just negativity, imo.


It's not just too much work, it's also unnecessary, imho. Yes, any review, positive or negative can be useful, but....

I, for one, am looking for the books I WANT, not the books I don't want. There is a flood of books I don't want to read - some excellent, some crappy - so negative reviews in and of themselves don't really matter as much as the content of the review.

Camille


----------



## Steven L. Hawk (Jul 10, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> All those people who reviewed "'Twilight' as great and fantastic" do indeed have integrity - they genuinely love the book and others who love the book do indeed listen to them. Because they recommended it to people who love the book, those people will always trust their judgment. If they exhibit of pattern of recommending more books that those readers love, then they will do great good for the writers they recommend.
> 
> Do you get that? If you want to gain reputation, you should do like those Twilight reviewers and recommend those books you passionately LOVE, not just any book by someone who reviews you. Or by someone you happen to meet on line. Because you don't have a best selling novel to base your reputation on.
> 
> Camille


I wasn't going to post because others have expressed my viewpoints several times over. But Camille makes an excellent point here. The only reason an author should provide a positive review of another author's book is *because they truly enjoyed it and honestly believe that other readers will enjoy it as well.*

There has been a lot of discussion on whether authors should give negative reviews of other authors. Some do, some don't, and I respect everyone's choice in the matter. However, any other reason for a positive review except that you truly enjoyed the book is utter bunk. If you write a good review _only _to curry favor with an author, your review is bunk. If you give 4 or 5 stars _only _because it's your end of a review trade, your review is bunk. If you give a good review simply because the author is your uncle/neighbor/dentist/whatever, then your review is bunk.

Fortunately, I haven't seen any of these. If they do occur, hopefully they are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Indie publishing should be about pioneering something new and positive. It shouldn't be about bashing what's traditional and may or may not work anymore. I like indie publishing because it diversifies book markets, it offers readers a cheaper product than bookstores can, and it's better for the environment when it's done digitally. Whether or not Steven King is a good writer effects my personal writing career not at all. I happen to like Steven King, but how he makes money is his business and how I make money is mine. He feeds his kids and pays his taxes, I'm sure. Can't fault him for that. Don't want to.

I guess my point is that traditional publishing isn't oppressing anyone. It just can't cater to everyone. Indie publishing broadens the playing field. Does it change the game? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make money as an artist in whatever way you can without making yourself unhappy, that's what I say. It's what any sane person says, if you want my opinion.


----------



## VickiT (May 12, 2010)

There’s been a lot of talk about review swapping. Until yesterday, I’d never been solicited for a review. Nor have I ever requested a review from another writer. (I have submitted my work to book review blogs.)

But if you check out my reviews, you will find they’re mainly for Indie authors. I read mainstream books but tend to review for those I know will appreciate them. What’s one more review on a bestseller that already has hundreds?

I confess, though, when it came to my holiday/vacation reading, I checked out the books from those writers who’d reviewed (unsolicited) Thin Blood and added the ones that interested me to my reading list. (N.B. That doesn’t mean I’ll review the book of every author who reviews mine.) I also read and reviewed another handful of Indie books from authors that haven't read my work. If all my reviews are 4- and 5-star, it has nothing to do with “helping” other writers, but more to do with being selective about what I read. That’s what samples are for. Review swapping doesn’t come into it.


----------



## VickiT (May 12, 2010)

I've just seen this tweet from Elizabeth Craig:

elizabethscraig: Supporting other writers--it's not about reciprocity: http://dld.bz/r4HX @authorterryo


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

VickiT said:


> I've just seen this tweet from Elizabeth Craig:
> 
> elizabethscraig: Supporting other writers--it's not about reciprocity: http://dld.bz/r4HX @authorterryo


I read this and agree. I think it is very important to support other writers. That doesn't mean I will review every writer I read, but I have decided to try to do something everyday to support another writer. It may be something small such as mentioning their book or reading a blog or commenting on a blog, but writing can be a very depressing, scary journey at times, and any support is so helpful.

Ann


----------



## Sharlow (Dec 20, 2009)

zoewinters said:


> Thanks for the shout out! Yeah, there are 4 episodes up now on my youtube channel page. On Monday we meet Agent Broccoli.


You should post your youtube link Zoe. Just for us lazy people.


----------

