# Disappointing interview



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I just came across an interview of a Kindle author, Lee Goldberg. I was excited when I saw it because I'd read the book about a month ago. However, his very unflattering comments about indie authors was very disheartening. Apparently 99.9% of us aren't just terrible, but we write like we didn't even graduate high school. 
http://kindle-author.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-lee-goldberg.html


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Hmmm.

Unfortunate way of phrasing things there I feel. He's probably right that a lot of stuff that's self-published isn't up to a high enough standard, but there are more tactful ways of saying it!


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Looks like I will put him in with Jack Kilborn as writers that I will never buy books from. 
They both seem to have the same high opinion of themselves.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Unfortunate way of phrasing things there I feel. He's probably right that a lot of stuff that's self-published isn't up to a high enough standard, but there are more tactful ways of saying it!


Exactly. He pretty much just told us that we were all crap. 99.9%? Really? I don't think so.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

I think the thing here is not to take comments like this personally! If the dude thinks indie's aren't that much good, then he's entitled to that opinion. It's less what he says, than the way he said it. Big pity.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

NickSpalding said:


> I think the thing here is not to take comments like this personally! If the dude thinks indie's aren't that much good, then he's entitled to that opinion. It's less what he says, than the way he said it. Big pity.


That's the key thing about being an author, isn't it? The ability to choose words to express your thoughts? I guess we know what he thinks of independent writers AND the people who buy their books. Unless he is making money off of us buying his backlist books, that is.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> I think the thing here is not to take comments like this personally! If the dude thinks indie's aren't that much good, then he's entitled to that opinion. It's less what he says, than the way he said it. Big pity.


True, but isn't that kind of ironic? Either he knew what he was saying was going to be cruel and he said it anyway, or he didn't mean to say it like that, but didn't have the writing skills to be more tactful. I already bought The Walk, but I won't be buying any more of his books. I'll save my hard-earned money.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I happen to like Lee's books, but his opinions are old school and show that he hasn't really read that many indie books, especially by our kindleboard authors!

He's entitled to his opinion, and I think we need to be careful about reading too much into an on-line interview, it is impossible to tell how he meant things.


----------



## J.E.Johnson (Aug 5, 2009)

It's a shame he didn't proofread his responses (or get his editor to do it).  I found a nice little handful of typos  .  He may be right about some things, but I'd say most of the indie books I've purchased on the Kindle have been very well-written.
-Jenna


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Mary,

You made the same comment on the blog post. Here was my reply:

I am not saying there isn't good self-published work out there... there is. But all you have to do is start downloading samples of self-published work on the Kindle and you'll see for yourself how cringe-inducing and astonishingly awful most of it is. Go ahead, try it. It's not for the faint of heart.

That's not an indictment of all self-publishing... but there are far too many people who hack out something half-assed, upload it unedited to the Kindle, and call it a book... because they can, not because the book is any good at all (or even coherent).

This should be a concern to "indie" authors as well. If readers get burned enough times by awful self-published books, or even by reading inept samples, they are going to become far less likely to try indie authors in the future.

Lee

PS - This is NOT the first time I have expressed these views here. I discussed them in great detail in this thread:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,14621.0.html


----------



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

I think it's extremely sad that any author, published or indie would make a statement that denegrates other authors that they have not read.  If he reads my work and finds it unsatisfactory, or not what he feels is not up to professional standards then that's one thing.  But to make a blanket statement to cover all indie authors is wrong.  Even before I became an indie author I read several great indie books.  Always made me wonder what was wrong with publishers that these authors weren't picked up immediately.  I haven't read everyone here's books, but there are some I definitely will, and I'll be doing reviews for any author who would like one.  I also will do an interview and post it to all my sites for any author who would like one.  Send me a message and I'll give you my personal email and we can set something up.

If your work isn't up to par--you know it.  If it is--ignore these statements and keep writing.  More and more published authors are considering becoming indies.  There are many, many reasons for that.

Having just read Lee's post prior to publishing this, I doubt very seriously that books that are unedited and poorly written will remain on line for long.  And yes, they may in some ways hurt indie sales.  But readers will keep buying, especially if we put up a good product and market it.


----------



## Thumper (Feb 26, 2009)

Cut the guy a break; he's forming an opinion based on the samples he's downloaded, and he says just that--what he thinks is based on those samples. If we're honest with ourselves we'll freely admit that there's a whole lot of literary carpola out there, and it's because e-publication is so much easier than even POD.

I didn't read that interview as a condemnation on indie writers; I read it thinking he believes writers should go for the traditional publishing route first, and of those who don't...what *he* has read has been pretty awful stuff. I can't support that his opinion is disheartening, not when he speaks his own truth.

I've found some real gems in the indie world, novels so good that I'm amazed they haven't been plucked out of Indy-dom by some major publisher, and some stuff that has me wondering if the writer realizes he or she should be embarrassed by what they've put out there for the world to see. Sadly, more of the latter than the former. There's also merit in what he says about putting the garbage out there: you only get one chance at that first impression. Those writers may be committing writing-career suicide. He made the point that, at least, being able to publish on the Kindle can cut out the scam-variety vanity publishers.

One major thing I personally think--the writers that hang here are more dedicated to the craft; they're more willing to seek out advice and accept criticism, do massive rewrites to get it right, and the end product shows it. Those who read books by Kindleboard authors may have a skewed perspective, because the work of these people is *good.* But if you start random sampling of indioe books for the Kindle...lots and lots of really bad stuff out there.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

scarlet said:


> I happen to like Lee's books, but his opinions are old school and show that he hasn't really read that many indie books, especially by our kindleboard authors!
> 
> He's entitled to his opinion, and I think we need to be careful about reading too much into an on-line interview, it is impossible to tell how he meant things.


Actually, I have read many self-published books...been a judge for several major awards as well as a judge for various published anthologies (including Michael Connelly's recent BLUE RELIGION). And, as a TV producer, I also read a lot of spec scripts. So I have seen more than my share of bad writing.

You can be a champion of self-published work but that doesn't mean you should have your head in the sand about the quality of the vast majority of it. Yes, there's really bad professionally published books, too...mine may be among them... but not nearly to the degree that you find among self-published work. Yes, there's good self-pubbed stuff, even great work... but most of it, sadly, is far from it. That's what happens when all it takes is a click to be "published," no talent, editing, or writing skills required. Don't believe me, sample the stuff for yourself.

I said in the interview that I think it's a mistake to self-publish on the Kindle simply because you can. If you want to have a career as an author, you have to be very careful what you put out there. Just because you *can* publish something doesn't mean that you *should.* The kindle isn't a short cut to a publishing career....nor is it a slot machine.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I've found some poorly written self-published books out there... but I've found many that are well written and draw me in.  From what I've read and sampled, I wouldn't say 99.9% are bad.

But it's also just an opinion.

I've heard people say this or that published author can't write.  I have disagreed, but I can't fault the person for their opinion.

I'd try not to take it personally.  Unless he specifically names you.  Then you can.  

Vicki


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Do you honestly believe that most self-published work is good?


No more than I believe that just because an author was picked up by one of the big publishing houses that their work is good, it is sellable, a completely different thing.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I've read good indie works, mediocre indie works, very bad indie works and GREAT indie works.

I've also read good trad published works, mediocre trad works, horrible trad works and GREAT trad works.

Some authors that other people love I hate, and authors that other people don't like I love.  

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Amen, Miss Scarlet.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I said in the interview that I think it's a mistake to self-publish on the Kindle simply because you can. If you want to have a career as an author, you have to be very careful what you put out there. Just because you *can* publish something doesn't mean that you *should.* The kindle isn't a short cut to a publishing career....nor is it a slot machine.


It's kind of like a slot machine. For me anyway. I put a book in, and wow, I got money back. Real money.

I didn't get any money submitting to agents. 

Yay Kindle! People are buying my book, enjoying it, and I'm paying a few bills.

But, I never wanted to quit my day job and write for a living either. So... for me it's working.

Vicki


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

*shrug* There will always be people telling me - whether in a general sense or specific - that my work sucks. I'm not going to give someone extra attention because of it. Folks, do your books suck? Swallow your pride and have a good hard look. If you're not sure, do something about it. Go the trad route, hire an editor, whatever. If you know it's good, though, thumb your nose at the naysayers and do it how YOU want to.

As far as longterm planning - nobody _knows_ the exact future of publishing. We're all guessing, and hopefully putting our time and money into the option that we think will come out ahead. Personally, I think any unknown focusing primarily on bricks and mortar coverage is NUTS.


----------



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

> I have a sampled hundreds of self-published books on the Kindle... and 99.9% of them aren't just awful, they border on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school.


So 1 out of every 1000 samples is written by someone better than a high school graduate. I wonder, what is your percentage of people who are even 'good'? 1 out of 5,000? 1 out of 10,000? Just funny. I don't remember needing to read several hundred samples before I found someone who could string two sentences together with a mediocre amount of skill. Heck, I don't remember needing to read more than fifty.

Yes, there is a lot of crap out there. For all I know, you might consider my works crap, too. But to declare that you could download a thousand samples of indie authors and only find ONE that "graduated high school" is insulting.

David Dalglish


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Mary,
> 
> You made the same comment on the blog post. Here was my reply:
> 
> ...


I understand your point, but there are different ways of creating good self-published books and discouraging bad ones. Why not point out some good self-published books you'd found and stress how well edited they were, how well written, edited,etc. That would be emphasizing that these things are just as important in self-pubbed novels, thereby maybe opening some authors' eyes that success can only come with hard work.

However, you said 99.9% of us were terrible. Maybe you were just exaggerating but you said it in public, which mean it could affect my sales. Since I doubt I'm in that .1% that you would considered as educated enough to write a book, I did take it personally. Your comments might have caused Kindle owners to not give any indie authors a chance. After all, a successful real author said that most of us are barely literate and seem to have just sat down and banged away on a keyboard for a month or so and uploaded the results.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

David and Mary,

I don't know why you are taking my comments personally. I meant no offense. I am *NOT* saying that your individual books, or any book self-published by anyone here is bad simply by virtue of it being self-published.

What I *AM* saying is that most of the self-published books I have read or sampled have been terrible. Is that really such a shocking statement? When all it takes is a mouse-click to be "published," _of course_ the majority of the work is going to be horrendous. There are no standards, skills, or talent required. Just the ability to type and click. Even the most ardent supporters of self-publishing should understand that. And if you've actually sampled self-published work, you know as well as I do how unbelievably bad so much of it is...far, far worse, I would argue, than the worst of what's published by major publishing houses.

Does that mean your book is bad because it's self-published? Of course not! I'd be a fool to say that.

But it *does *mean you have to overcome the negative image that self-published books have. You can stomp your feet and wail about how unfair that is... it won't change the facts. There's a stigma attached to self-publishing and it's there because so much of it has been, and continues to be, sludge. I fear that the incredible ease of self-publishing that the Kindle, Smashwords, etc. offer will only make that stigma worse...and harder for the truly great works to overcome (and get the notice, respect, and readership they deserve).

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> But it *does *mean you have to overcome the negative image that self-published books have. You can stomp your feet and wail about how unfair that is... it won't change the facts. There's a stigma attached to self-publishing and it's there because so much of it has been, and continues to be, sludge. I fear that the incredible ease of self-publishing that the Kindle, Smashwords, etc. offer will only make that stigma worse...and harder for the truly great works to overcome (and get the notice, respect, and readership they deserve).


I do disagree with this. At least it's been my experience that the best selling indie books are the ones that are most visible... because of the way Amazon markets. And the best selling indie books are good. Very good. So, who is going to see the sludge? Have you ever tried to search Amazon for books that don't sell?

Who cares if all the illiterate people publish crap on the Kindle? The crap doesn't get noticed because it doesn't sell. Period.

I'd love to see what percentage of indie books placed in the top 10,000 best sellers list you'd consider to be crap. Or maybe it's been a while since you've sampled indie books?

Vicki


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

99.9% of anything is a just another way of saying ALL OF IT.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2010)

Like I said elsewhere, all traditionally published authors have left is the satisfaction of feeling superior.


----------



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

Yes, Lee, but part of that negative image we have to overcome is _fostered_ by the same types of comments you yourself made. We all know there's a ton of bad self-published. But at least those of us here on the KB know that there is a lot of good self-published works too. The reason I take offense is that a quick trip to the awesome list in the Book Bazaar of all the KB authors doesn't have anywhere near 1,000 listed there. Even assuming we KBers are better than average (a slightly egotistical thought, but meh, perhaps it is true ) that means that by your statement, only one of that entire list writes at a high school level.

I know of plenty of writers here on these boards that are flat-out better than me. Makes it hard to think I'm that lucky 1 out of a 1000 then. See the point? That 99.9% is pretty darn close to the word "all", though that just may be the mathematician in me . But look at the people that have posted in this thread. I see what, at least 5-7 books you can sample right there. By your statement, we'd be lucky to have one at a high school level.

Sorry, Vicki, your writing is illiterate. Same with you, Mary. Oh, and you too, John Fitch. Sorry, but you didn't even graduate high school. I can't write at all, either. Maybe you're the lucky one, Mr. Spalding. You've passed "high school" level, but good luck actually being considered 'good.'

Course you can say that we're the cream of the crop. So go ahead and sample some of ours. Even if you only like three, you'd need to grab 2,997 bad samples in a row to keep your average. 

The point is that maybe, just maybe, you slightly over-exaggerated the amount of borderline illiterate samples you'll read compared to the good ones?

David Dalglish


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Like I said elsewhere, all traditionally published authors have left is the satisfaction of feeling superior.


You could be onto something. Brilliant!


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> By your statement, we'd be lucky to have one at a high school level.


I guess by his standards, my self-published titles, which had all at some point been offered contracts with small publishers are crap. That my decision to keep higher royalties and control by self-publishing instead means I can't write. That my college degree, in which I started out with a 4.0 and graduated with a 3.4 GPA for my Bachelor of Science COLLEGE degree means I an incapable of telling a good story.

I agree with you, David. It is an insult to those of us who have spent nearly 20 years of honing our craft and have 4-5 star ratings on several ebook sites for our indie published books. Readers obviously have no taste *tongue firmly planted in cheek*.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Probably not going to win any popularity contests here, but Lee is entitled to his opinion. And honestly, there really is a LOT of crap out there. However, I do think the numbers he presents are skewed. 99.9%? No, I don't think that's accurate.

Keep in mind that opinions across the business are VERY subjective. What Lee considers sludge might not seem like sludge to someone else. As Victorine pointed out, however, the truly awful stuff usually gets no attention at all.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Probably not going to win any popularity contests here, but Lee is entitled to his opinion.


Hey, I just had a popularity contest and guess what... you WON!










Vicki


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Oh, and you too, John Fitch. Sorry, but you didn't even graduate high school. I can't write at all, either. Maybe you're the lucky one, Mr. Spalding. You've passed "high school" level, but good luck actually being considered 'good.'
> 
> David Dalglish


Damn, and I thought I would never get to use that lovely red-bound thingy.


----------



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

John Fitch V said:


> d*mn, and I thought I would never get to use that lovely red-bound thingy.


Sorry, John, you'll just have to be content with those 20 sales you got on Turning Back the Clock today 

David Dalglish


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Probably not going to win any popularity contests here, but Lee is entitled to his opinion. And honestly, there really is a LOT of crap out there. However, I do think the numbers he presents are skewed. 99.9%? No, I don't think that's accurate.
> 
> Keep in mind that opinions across the business are VERY subjective. What Lee considers sludge might not seem like sludge to someone else. As Victorine pointed out, however, the truly awful stuff usually gets no attention at all.


Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I think those numbers are pretty extreme. As DD said, he might as well have said _all_. I agree that there is a higher percentage of garbage among indie books than commercially published books, because of the filtering process; BUT a lot of good books are rejected every day by agents and publishers only because they don't think they can make enough money off them to sustain their publishing model.

Anything with stories is subjective. Success and failure in the entertainment industry are based on the opinions of the observers, aka readers for our purposes. And the flotsam _will _sink to the bottom, but so will some great works that don't get any attention. Authors need to make their own names with the public, whether indie or commercially published.

(I'm not arguing with you, David. The fact of the matter is that the implication was made that indie books are pretty much worthless. THAT is what I object to.)


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Hey, I just had a popularity contest and guess what... you WON!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why I love this board. It makes me laugh!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

It's all a matter of deciding what you want to focus on when you give an interview or enter a discussion--you can highlight the positive or wallow in the negative.  You can choose to talk about authors you love, whether traditional or self-pubbed, or you can focus instead on pointing out flaws, risks and problems.  One choice promotes a community, the other does not.

All of us have books/authors we love.  I'm pretty sure all of us have a few we don't get or whose work we don't like.  It's all a matter of choosing which to talk about.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> Like I said elsewhere, all traditionally published authors have left is the satisfaction of feeling superior.


Spoken like someone who had never been published...or has any true understanding of what it means.

I wrote this in another thread here, but it's relevant in this discussion as well...



> I don't think I'd set out to write an original novel for the Kindle...but I have certainly earned *far* more from the Kindle sales of THE WALK than I did from Five Star. I would aim first for a sale to a major publishers. But if it was a choice between Five Star (or a small publisher like it), I would probably go for the Kindle. It would purely be a financial decision, not a career one. I am already an established, professional author. *HOWEVER*, if I was a newbie author, I would definitely go with Five Star (or another small, reputable, respected press) rather than self-publish on the Kindle. With a small press like Five Star, you have the chance to be widely reviewed (almost definitely by PW), stocked in libraries, sold in some stores, and it will make you eligible for major awards and active status membership in professional writers organizations, which is very important for networking, awards, speaking gigs, etc. You will be regarded as a professional, published author. That's still an important requirement for a writer who wants to make a career out being a novelist.


Now if you are doing this as a hobby, and you don't care about actually having a career as a novelist, or enjoying wide recognition for your work, then you're right, you don't need to be published by real publisher.

But let's be honest here, okay?

There's a reason why Boyd Morrison yanked his book off the Kindle the instant Simon & Schuster came calling. If Simon & Schuster came to *ANY* self-published writer here and offered them a three-book contract, they'd ditch self-publishing in a nanosecond. And you'd be thrilled for them. Why? Not because they could "feel superior," but because being published by a major publisher, and having your work edited, marketed, and widely distributed to bookstores nationwide, and having a shot at becoming a best-selling author (and a household name), is still the dream of most aspiring writers.

But it's not easy to be published... you have to find an agent, and then your agent has to get an editor excited, then the editor has to get the rest of the publishing house excited, then the publishers have to get the bookstores excited. You need talent, skill, perseverance, and luck. On the other hand, it is easy to be "published" on the Kindle. All it takes is a click.

Lee


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thumper said this earlier, but I want to reiterate it:

Mary misquoted Lee in her initial post (sorry, Mary. ) I was wrong, Mary did not quote Lee as saying that. This is what Mary said:


MaryMcDonald said:


> I just came across an interview of a Kindle author, Lee Goldberg. I was excited when I saw it because I'd read the book about a month ago. However, his very unflattering comments about indie authors was very disheartening. Apparently 99.9% of us aren't just terrible, but we write like we didn't even graduate high school.


 Sorry again, Mary. 

Lee did NOT say that 99.9% of all Indie writers wrote crap. He said:


> I have a sampled hundreds of self-published books on the Kindle... and 99.9% of them [the samples he read] aren't just awful, they border on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school. It's astonishing just how terrible the stuff is. Putting unprofessional, hideous crap on the Kindle *will* hurt your career. You only have one chance to make a first impression with readers, agents and publishers.


For everyone posting: agree or disagree with the man, but do so based on what he actually said.

Now, back to the popularity contest. 

Betsy


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

There is good and bad in absolutely every profession; be they doctors, lawyers, teachers or cherry pickers. I've read bad books, and eaten bad cherries. That's life.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Sorry, John, you'll just have to be content with those 20 sales you got on Turning Back the Clock today
> 
> David Dalglish


Plus the three DTBs. What will I ever do?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Thumper said this earlier, but I want to reiterate it:
> 
> Mary misquoted Lee in her initial post (sorry, Mary. )
> 
> ...


Actually, I didn't quote because I had the link there for anyone to see the whole article. I was paraphrasing. There are no quote around what I said.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Now if you are doing this as a hobby, and you don't care about actually having a career as a novelist, or enjoying wide recognition for your work, than you're right, you don't need to be published by real publisher.


Um, but if you can make more money publishing on the Kindle than traditionally... well isn't that better? What is a career if it's not making money at doing what you love? I don't need accolades... I can't pay the bills with them.

I AM paying bills with the money I'm making from Kindle sales though. And it's just one book. Heaven only knows what would happen if I finished that second one.

If it's a choice between making more money on my own, and publishing with Simon and Schuster... well I'm going at it on my own. I wouldn't yank my book to go with them. I think Boyd made a mistake.

Vicki


----------



## Rye (Nov 18, 2008)

I'll agree that he's entitled to his opinion, so I'm not gonna slam him for it, but I will respectfully disagree. I do think he used a poor choice of words and cannot fathom that the percentage is that high. I suspect his is a popular view amongst many traditionally published authors though. I've read a good bit of self-published books and I think a good number of the authors on KB are better than most. But it's just an opinion...I've read several authors from big publishing houses who I think are terrible. But I also don't think any author should be slamming another author's work...bad karma.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Actually, I didn't quote because I had the link there for anyone to see the whole article. I was paraphrasing. There are no quote around what I said.


Sorry, Mary...you're right, it wasn't a quote. This is apparently my day for not writing clearly. However, Lee still didn't say anything about 99.9% of Indie writers, just about the samples he'd read. Just trying to make that clear. And apparently doing so badly. I'll go do some strikethroughs in my post.

Betsy


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Actually, I didn't quote because I had the link there for anyone to see the whole article. I was paraphrasing.


And you paraphrased me inaccurately.

Lee


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Hey, I just had a popularity contest and guess what... you WON!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awwww.  Thanks, Vic.




LeeGoldberg said:


> But let's be honest here, okay?
> 
> There's a reason why Boyd Morrison yanked his book off the Kindle the instant Simon & Schuster came calling. If Simon & Schuster came to *ANY* self-published writer here and offered them a three-book contract, they'd ditch self-publishing in a nanosecond. And you'd be thrilled for them. Why? Not because they could "feel superior," but because being published by a major publisher, and having your work edited, marketed, and widely distributed to bookstores nationwide, and having a shot at becoming a best-selling author (and a household name), is still the dream of most aspiring writers.
> 
> ...


I have to say, as much as I enjoy the ability to control every aspect of my books (and I do!), this statement isn't far from the truth. If Simon and Schuster came knocking on my door and asked for the rights to 33 A.D. you better believe I'd listen. Because the dream is still to make a living. Not that it can't be done as an indie, but with a big NYC house throwing marketing dollars your way, promoting gets a lot easier.

Seriously, I refuse to get angry with Lee for (A) having an opinion, and (B) expressing it. I've read through the slush pile for a small press a time or three, and it's _not_ pretty. Most of the stuff that shows up in slush is terrible. No sense of grammar, spelling, or sentence structure. Misused words, derivative ideas, and personal opinions on just about everything under the sun thinly disguised as fiction and slapped together in novel form. Really. There's a TON of ...just...total...crap... out there. Unless you've read slush, you truly have no idea how bad it can be. And now a lot of those authors are releasing stuff without a thought as to why their work was rejected in the first place. THAT is the sludge that Lee is referring to, I think. And yes, it does exist, although not in the percentages he alluded to. At least, I don't think so.

Honestly, I don't mean to sound like I agree with him that 99.9% of the self published work available on the internet is garbage, because it's not. But be realistic, here. A lot of it is. And again, opinions vary. Hell, any of you could call my work crap if you want to. You wouldn't be the first person to do it, and I wouldn't get offended.

The "crap" thing is a stigma that indie authors have to overcome. The good ones will, and the bad ones won't, but we can't get mad about it or pretend it doesn't exist because that won't solve anything.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sigh....


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Me sensing that the thread is about three posts away from being lockededed.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sigh....


Hey, now.... I thought I was rather eloquent.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> If it's a choice between making more money on my own, and publishing with Simon and Schuster... well I'm going at it on my own. I wouldn't yank my book to go with them. I think Boyd made a mistake.


You honestly think Boyd made a mistake!? He got a huge advance, a three-book contract, as well as selling foreign and audio rights. He's getting a huge marketing push...thousands of bound galleys of THE ARK were given away at Book Expo and several major mystery conventions. I'm certain that has led to serious interest from Hollywood (if not outright sales to the studios). What he was given was an amazing, and very rare, opportunity...and I believe he would have been insane to turn his back on that over continuing to self-publish the titles on the Kindle.

But it's also more than the money. With this deal, he has established himself as a published, professional author...which is important in the long-run for his career as a novelist.

If you can earn nice money on the Kindle, and reach some readers, and that is all you aspire to, then that's great and I am happy for you. But if you seek a career as a professional writer, there are other considerations besides money.

I am far enough along in my career as a professional writer and screenwriter that I would choose the Kindle over a press like Five Star, which has limited distribution (though I love the folks there). On the other hand, I might go with a small press like Busted Flush, even though the money is not as good as I might earn on the Kindle, because of the exposure it will bring me in the industry, in the press, and with key bookstores that are important to supporting a long-term career. I can always bring it back to the Kindle when it goes out of print.

But if I was a newbie writer, and I had the choice between Five Star and the Kindle, even if I might _make_ more money on the Kindle, I would definitely go with Five Star. Without question.

Lee


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

It should be noted that Five Star, though small, is a reputable publisher. There are a lot of small start up presses that are not. Just sayin'.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I cannot believe this whole thread.  

I guess I'm not going to win any popularity contests either, because I've got to say this:

This thin skinned over-reaction to such statements really makes Indies look bad. When someone says "most of that stuff is crap" it does NOT matter if they give numbers or exaggerate or what.  Most self-published work IS crap to most people.  And when you get all huffy about someone pointing that out... well it looks to any observer like you're saying that crap is okay.  And not only that, but that you don't think anyone else has a right to criticize it.

And to the outside observer, that makes it sound like it must be true.

Look, right here on this group, we have people who take indie publishing seriously.  We have to admit we are in the minority.  (Although, as someone pointed out up thread, we are a visible minority.)  We have a serious job to do.  It really does hurt that effort when we're thin skinned and defensive.  And by attacking people who point out uncomfortable truths, or at least uncomfortable perceptions, all we do is shoot the messenger.    

There are a whole lot of things I disagree with Lee on, and I wouldn't mind having a serious discussion about them, but you can only start that kind of discussion from a point of view of respect. 

Camille


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I think we may be able to all agree that ebook publishing is still in its infancy, traditional publishing is in its twilight years, and publishing in the next couple of decades is going to make winners and losers out of a _lot_ of people. Right now, I think the readers are coming out ahead. While traditional publishing is doing its best to retain its business model, a lot of talented, hungry authors are able to get their books out to the masses. The cream will rise to the top, the chum will sink to the bottom.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I cannot believe this whole thread.
> 
> I guess I'm not going to win any popularity contests either, because I've got to say this:
> 
> ...


nothing to add to this except that is pretty much what I've been trying to say, albeit less successfully than you.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> It should be noted that Five Star, though small, is a reputable publisher. There are a lot of small start up presses that are not. Just sayin'.


That's a VERY important point, David. Writers have to do their research, especially with small presses. Many are POD houses set up by aspiring writers with no experience in publishing. One good place to start, at least for mystery writers, is the Approved Publishers list on the Mystery Writers of America website (www.mysterywriters.org). The publishers on the list are vetted by the MWA and must meet or exceed some very stringent requirements.

Lee


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> That's a VERY important point, David. Writers have to do their research, especially with small presses. Many are POD houses set up by aspiring writers with no experience in publishing. One good place to start, at least for mystery writers, is the Approved Publishers list on the Mystery Writers of America website (www.mysterywriters.org). The publishers on the list are vetted by the MWA and must meet or exceed some very stringent requirements.
> 
> Lee


Thanks for the link, Lee. Also, thanks for stopping by and discussing this with us. I appreciate it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> Hey, now.... I thought I was rather eloquent.


As always, Verena. 

Betsy


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Like Lee, I was published with Five Star.  They printed my fantasy novel "Firefly Island" in 2007.  It went through a couple professional editors.  It was reviewed by Booklist, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and other major publications.

And like Lee, I eventually uploaded my novel to Kindle, going indie with it.

At first I was hesitant.  I had heard so many negative things about self publishing.  And I was a REAL author; I had survived the slushpile!  Booklist (THE Booklist) had called me "an author to watch"!  Wasn't going indie only for the commoners?  But I figured, "Who cares, let's give this indie ebook thing a shot."

What I discovered is a wonderful community of lovely authors and readers.  I discovered great talent and great people -- you know who you are, you're the ones reading this now.  Going indie is one of the best decisions I made in my career.  With my next novel, I'm not going to Five Star or another publisher; I'm going straight to DTP, and I'm proud of that.

Is there a lot of poor quality indie fiction on Kindle?  Yes.  Is MOST indie fiction on Kindle mediocre?  Maybe.  But there's also a lot of mediocre work at major publishers.  Online, with ebooks, READERS decide.  Not editors or publishers or agents.  The bad books don't sell.  The great ones do.  Simple as that.  The power is with the readers, and I love that.  That's the way it should be.

I loved being at Five Star; it's a great little publisher full of great people.  I have only positive things to say about them.  But I'm even MORE excited being part of this new community of talented indie authors.  I'm more excited about my writing career than I've been in years.  I've even been paying my monthly bills thanks to "Firefly Island", and it's been a long time since that's happened.

My $0.02.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I cannot believe this whole thread.
> 
> I guess I'm not going to win any popularity contests either, because I've got to say this:
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Loving the banter back and forth. But I just want to know one thing: Would someone please go to page four of the Kindle Community on Amazon.com and bump my thread? I will glad pay you Tuesday for a bump on that board today.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> Loving the banter back and forth. But I just want to know one thing: Would someone please go to page four of the Kindle Community on Amazon.com and bump my thread? I will glad pay you Tuesday for a bump on that board today.


Done.  I have one over there on the second or third page. I wouldn't mind a bump.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

What's the title, Mary?


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

They aren't on this board, Betsy. 

And Mary, consider yourself bumpeded.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

For a minute there, you scared me, thought you were bumping here.   Whew.  Carry on.

Betsy


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> That's a VERY important point, David. Writers have to do their research, especially with small presses. Many are POD houses set up by aspiring writers with no experience in publishing. One good place to start, at least for mystery writers, is the Approved Publishers list on the Mystery Writers of America website (www.mysterywriters.org). The publishers on the list are vetted by the MWA and must meet or exceed some very stringent requirements.


I've got a headache, so let's see if I can be coherent about why I am not so excited about traditional publishing any more....

I've been knocking around for a long long time. I went to Clarion in 1982. I was just a baby writer at the time, and it took a very long time to digest everything I learned in that mind-blowing experience. Back then, and at many times since, I was assured that "YOU'LL have no trouble making a living in this business." (Which shows you how poorly even the coolest mentor is at predicting the future.)

I have a million reasons for not being a success yet. Anything from disasters in my real life, to the fact that I'm not an sf writer, but all my mentors and contacts are sf people. But I think the really big one is that publishing has changed radically since then.

It was some time in the eighties that I noticed that my favorite new writers tended to disappear after three or four books. Then in the nineties, that seemed to accelerate. The authors who wrote the kind of thing I wanted to write ALL disappeared after a few books. (Except for those who had established a name in the sixties and seventies first.) And thanks to the internet, I was able to track down a lot of these people, and they were able to confirm that no, it was not because they stopped writing. A lot of these people had a steady and loyal following, but it just wasn't big enough for Barnes and Noble to keep ordering their books.

Around that time, I just decided to step out of the pool. The people whose writing I admired did not need my competition, and the more I knew about even those who were still holding on to a career, the more I realized that I saw no rewards in publishing at that time. I figured that it would change eventually, but I might be better off writing screenplays, plays and doing script analysis for a while.

I came back to publishing last year, because it seemed like the climate for the light mystery was getting better, but I still see series and writers disappearing too fast for me as a reader. Because of the way the whole book distribution system works in this "post Thor Power Tools" world, traditional publishing is just not a friendly environment for the kind of books that have a slowly-building, very loyal audience that you used to get in the midlist.

Yeah, there are pockets in various genres where the midlist has made a recovery, but I just don't see it with the kind of thing I write.

I just don't see Simon and Schuster getting that excited about what I write. I don't see any publisher (at the moment) making the kind of offer that would get my interest. Nobody's going to make that kind of offer for what I write, unless there is that lightening strike and I really hit the big time with my oddball stuff. If that happens, it doesn't really matter whether I ever considered traditional publishing or not.

Camille


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> For a minute there, you scared me, thought you were bumping here. Whew. Carry on.
> 
> Betsy


No worries.


----------



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

Well, I was all ready to make myself unpopular and take up for Lee here. You see I don't distinguish between the pure indie and mixed indie book samples I download (and I suspect some mixed indies are going to be disappointed to find that most readers don't). While I've never calculated, my guess is I actually go on to buy and start reading about 1 in 10 of those samples. And of those I probably finish maybe half. I'm a fussy reader, and the Kindle has made me worse. It's just so easy to zap anything that isn't really on target and get something else. I've quit on books at the 90% mark when I realized I just didn't care what happened in the last 10%. So if I were to make an effort to distinguish pure indie books and download 1,000 randomly without the filter of descriptions, reviews, and samples, who knows what percentage would be ones I'd read right through happily. (Full disclosure: there are all sorts of really well written books that you would have to pay me to read, including all of Shakespeare and anything with a vampire in it.)

However, I followed Mary's link and read the actual interview, and I do think that "... 99.9% of them aren't just awful, they border on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school. It's astonishing just how terrible the stuff is. Putting unprofessional, hideous crap on the Kindle ...." is more than a little over the top. A lot of indie books may not really be ready for prime time, but that's a far cry from "bordering on illiterate" and "hideous crap." Also, as someone who worked for lawyers for a lot of years, I have to stick in that anyone who thinks a lack of ability to write well is indicative of lack of education hasn't been out in the real world enough.

I'm with Victorine - if I can make money self-publishing as a pure indie, why should I let my ego make me pursue traditional publishing and less money? No money, probably, considering the odds. Is the answer to that: So that my books don't drag down the perception of quality in the self-published books of mixed indies? Sorry, I'm not that altruistic. I need the money. My little indie venture is saving me from having to clean out my barn and start boarding horses for extra income, something I really don't want to do at my age.

I'm also with Camille - instead of any of us getting our noses out of joint too far over Lee's opinion, why don't we just set ourselves to making sure we're in the .1%? If not his .1%, our target readers' .1%. IMO the potential is there to make a living and do it without destroying any quality of life for those of us who'd rather go to hell than New York City or a book signing.


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

ellenoc said:


> I'm also with Camille - instead of any of us getting our noses out of joint too far over Lee's opinion, why don't we just set ourselves to making sure we're in the .1%? *If not his .1%, our target readers' .1%*. IMO the potential is there to make a living and do it without destroying any quality of life for those of us who'd rather go to hell than New York City or a book signing.


You summed it up the point of contention here very well and the reason for the negativity of this thread. We are all writers but we must be aware how what we write affects readers because of how readers interpret our writing. In this case, it's the implications of the statement made about indie books.

 But this last paragraph I love. (we need an applauding smilie.) bolding is mine.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader, I didn't start reading Indie books because someone in a blog praised them, nor am I likely to stop because someone somewhere discribes the ones he's read as bad.  i started reading them because I got to know the authors here on KB.  Just sayin'

Betsy


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As a reader, I didn't start reading Indie books because someone in a blog praised them, nor am I likely to stop because someone somewhere discribes the ones he's read as bad. i started reading them because I got to know the authors here on KB. Just sayin'
> 
> Betsy


And we <3 you for it, Betsy.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You honestly think Boyd made a mistake!? He got a huge advance, a three-book contract, as well as selling foreign and audio rights. He's getting a huge marketing push...thousands of bound galleys of THE ARK were given away at Book Expo and several major mystery conventions. I'm certain that has led to serious interest from Hollywood (if not outright sales to the studios). What he was given was an amazing, and very rare, opportunity...and I believe he would have been insane to turn his back on that over continuing to self-publish the titles on the Kindle.


Alright, I admit I was silly saying Boyd made a mistake. Boyd can do what he wants. Sorry.

I guess what I meant is that most books that are traditionally published don't make any money. They don't get read by thousands of people. They get a small shelf life and then they're out of print.

I'd rather not sign with a publisher, I'll go it alone. I'm selling my book directly to the reader. I love that! No middle man. Just me making people happy with my little story. I love the comments people say while reading my book. The Kindle gave me that. And my readers gave me that. Thank you awesome readers!!

Vicki


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Amen, Vic.


----------



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

Personally I couldn't care less what people say about indie authors or the whole trad vs self-published thing.

The only thing that counts is this: are you getting sales? Are you getting the sales you want?

If you are selling, then it's a good book because it is making money and people are reading it.  Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion of it is so long as it keeps selling.

If you are an indie author selling books then be proud, you have a good book.

The real difference IMO is that indie authors are perhaps more entrepreneurial and see indie publishing as a business.  Trad authors are a little more caught up with trying to be inside some literary community (even Lee said that being a professional novelist means more than making money -- just paraphrasing).

It's a free country and I don't have any ill will toward Lee, it's his opinion and his right.  Doesn't concern me in the least.  It shouldn't concern you either.

One factor nobody mentions -- this is FUN.  A lot more FUN than querying hundreds of agent and publishers and getting rejections (seems like all the successful trad writers racked up hundreds of rejections).


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Who the heck is Lee Goldberg?

Dawn


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

I may not be the discerning reader that some of you are but for the past few months I've been, nearly exclusively, reading books written by Kindleboards authors. Of a hundred books I'd guess that five were simply awful, three were really quite good and the rest were, at very least, well worth my investment in time and money. That's not terribly different from my experience with mainstream books.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

J.R. Chase said:


> The real difference IMO is that indie authors are perhaps more entrepreneurial and see indie publishing as a business.


I would argue the same thing...only in reverse. One mistake many self-published authors make is that they *don't* see it as a business. They treat it like a hobby or an ego stroke. To many of them, it seems all that matters is being "in print," regardless of whether work is good enough. (Or, in the case of vanity press authors, how many thousands of dollars they spent to see their book "in print")

Writing is an art form but I certainly treat it as a business. I have to. I support myself and my family _*entirely*_ from my earnings as a writer, and have since college (I paid my tuition and living expenses from the money I earned freelance writing, selling my first novel to a publisher, and then selling the movie rights to the book to a studio).

To make a living as a writer, to be successful at it as a business, you need to be professionally published. Not just for the money, but for the professional stature...because contrary to what you believe, that status is vitally important to establishing and maintaining a career in this business...to being respected...to making the connections that will get you the widest possible audience, the largest possible sales, and the most income. The only reason I am turned to the Kindle was to monetize my backlist, which had stopped earning for me. It was a business decision. I have a backlist to monetize... and a platform from which to promote it... because I was professionally published for so long (and continue to be).

Joe Konrath, for example, had a long track record in publishing, and a following, before he put his unpublished work on the Kindle. You could argue that what really pushed him over the top on the Kindle was when the e-edition of his professionally published horror novel AFRAID was given away free...and introduced him to a huge audience that then gobbled up his other books. He's benefitted from professional editing, marketing, and distribution...and exhaustive and clever promotion... and shrewdly leveraged all of that into a Kindle success story. He is among the most entrepreneurial writers you will ever meet. In fact, scores of self-published authors are trying to copy his success without really understanding or appreciating how he achieved it (I believe the man actually holds the world record for the # of bookstores visited in one year on a book tour!)

To say that the difference between "self-published" authors and professionally published authors is that one treats it like a business and the other doesn't is, with all due respect, totally ridiculous. You won't find a single, successful professional writer who isn't entrepreneurial and doesn't treat their writing like a business.

Lee


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jeff said:


> I may not be the discerning reader that some of you are but for the past few months I've been, nearly exclusively, reading books written by Kindleboards authors. Of a hundred books I'd guess that five were simply awful, three were really quite good and the rest were, at very least, well worth my investment in time and money. That's not terribly different from my experience with mainstream books.




But the people you see here are actually serious about what they do. The authors you see posting are here to learn - which means they are people who are interested in actually doing a good job. The results may be mixed, but that cuts out the worst of the real garbage.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> To say that the difference between "self-published" authors and professionally published authors is that one treats it like a business and the other doesn't is, with all due respect, totally ridiculous. You won't find a single, successful professional writer who isn't entrepreneurial and doesn't treat their writing like a business.


While I agree with this statement in general, I do have to say that most of the professional writers I know are not that entrepreneurial - they are business people, and that's what counts in this argument... but just being a business person is not the same as being an entrepreneur.

Just as many indies are indeed hazy on what it means to run a business, I do think a lot of professionals and freelancers are hazy on the idea of entrepreneurship. Maybe the best way to explain the difference is to say the business of a professional writer is be a writer. The business of an indie writer is to be a publisher.

It's a different hat, and whether you're going to do well as an indie publisher actually has to do with whether you wear it well. I think it is a good thing to warn young writers about this... but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of us who don't understand it and already experienced at that.

Camille


----------



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

J.R. Chase said:


> One factor nobody mentions -- this is FUN. A lot more FUN than querying hundreds of agent and publishers and getting rejections (seems like all the successful trad writers racked up hundreds of rejections).


You're right. It is fun (although it's a lot of work too, just more enjoyable work), but would it be fun if you put your book out there and nobody bought it? And if nobody buys an indie book, isn't that rejection too, but just rejection from the end user instead of the middle man? My own experience is that to a great extent how much fun things are depends on whether or not I do halfway well at them. When I don't, I tend to find something else to do. But then I'm also that fussy reader.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> To make a living as a writer, to be successful at it as a business, you need to be professionally published.


I respectfully disagree with this. I mean, if you can make enough from your Kindle sales to support you and your family, then you are making a living as a writer.

I know people making a living with their Kindle book sales. Just because they aren't professionally published doesn't mean they can't make enough to support themselves.

But we're all entitled to our own opinions. It's all good here.

Vicki


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Just because they aren't professionally published doesn't mean they can't make enough to support themselves.


I would also like to point out that MOST professionally published writers (that is, those who have published with a real publisher) do NOT make a living at it. I don't personally know any traditionally published writers who don't also work at least one day job.

Camille


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I would also like to point out that MOST professionally published writers (that is, those who have published with a real publisher) do NOT make a living at it. I don't personally know any traditionally published writers who don't also work at least one day job.
> 
> Camille


Spot on, Camille. You are totally right.

Vicki


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> I respectfully disagree with this. I mean, if you can make enough from your Kindle sales to support you and your family, then you are making a living as a writer.


That's true, though I only know one writer who is making a living off his Kindle sales (he is on track to make over $100,000 this year from the Kindle alone!) and that would be Joe...but he was professionally published for years and still is.

What's also true is the comment Camille made that most professional writers can't make a living at it, that they have other jobs (Lawyers, doctors, whatever) that sustain them. That's particularly true of "mid-list" authors.

For example, I'm a successful mid-list author, with two books published a year by Penguin/Putnam and a backlist on the Kindle, but I can't make enough from my books to support my family. I make most of my living writing for television and film.

I would argue that mid-list authors have to be very entrepreneurial. I certainly have to be entrepreneurial... I have to hustle writing work in two different mediums...as well as consulting work for networks and studio overseas

While there may be some people making a living self-publishing, I still believe it's rare....and that, even now, to make it as an author over the long haul, you need to be professionally published. But as someone here pointed out, the industry is changing and what is true now may not be tomorrow.

Lee


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> While there may be some people making a living self-publishing, I still believe it's rare....and that, even now, to make it as an author over the long haul, you need to be professionally published. But as someone here pointed out, the industry is changing and what is true now may not be tomorrow.


I think this is an important point. I think that whether we're looking backward or forward changes our perspective.

But I also think there's a lot of difference in what we mean by various terms. What is a living? What does "make it" mean? What does entrepreneurial mean? I am very certain that every one of us has a different definition of each term.

For instance, to me, "entrepreneurial" means I'm not writing for money. I'm selling books for money. And I'm also selling articles, and t-shirts, and earning dividends on investments. And the books are completely interrelated with the other things. I'm the equivalent of the small organic farmer who makes a living at the farm markets, selling direct to the customers rather than dealing with the large processors and wholesalers. And if I feel like selling crocheted doilies too, well, heck, that's a part of the business.

Going indie is tough in any industry, but it's still a valid choice in every industry....

But that's not the point I actually wanted to make. (sorry to be rambling here) The thing is, let's just look at the odds. Most of the people here - even those who will become successful - have written things that will never be accepted by a traditional publisher, and will never earn a dime that way. If I can make a hundred bucks off that strange off-genre story that would never otherwise see the light of day.... then I've won. Especially if I am a delusional ignoramus with no talent who will never amount to anything at all in this business.

I've sold enough, and had enough reprints, and been nominated for enough awards to believe I'm not a delusional ignoramus. But I've also sold enough tomatoes to know that making a living at hand-selling is just a matter of whether you love doing that or not.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> That's true, though I only know one writer who is making a living off his Kindle sales (he is on track to make over $100,000 this year from the Kindle alone!) and that would be Joe...but he was professionally published for years and still is.


Amanda Hawking said she makes as much in 2 weeks with the new royalty rate as she does in her job in 6 months.

She also said she was going to buy me a Cadillac Escalade with spinning rims*.

*This is a joke. The statement before it is not.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Why even bother with Goldberg's comments. With 7000 Kindle copies sold he's not even remotely close to real Kindle bestsellers, so he is ultimately every bit as forgettable as the authors he disses. It's not like he is way out of anybody's league here.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

As someone who is entirely a reader, not a writer at all.

I will look at something that is free whether it has been traditionally published or not, and if it looks interesting I'll download it. A noticable amount of these have been indie books which want honest reviews whether good or bad and will give away free copies in order to get those. I haven't gotten to reading the books because of other stuff getting in the way, but I personally want to review any self published book on amazon which I read, no matter my opinion of it. 

However, when I'm spending money on a book, the following list is generally the order I'd do so in.

The first books that I will look at buying are the books which are self published by authors I have read books traditionally published by. 

The second set of books would be books by indie authors which I have already read books by as well as traditionally published books. 

The third set of books I would look at is books by kindleboard authors because of generally seeming to be higher quality than the random indie author.

The forth set would be whatever I happen to find on amazon.


The whole "looking at the self published books of people who I have read traditionally published books by first" probably has some to do with why Lee is saying that it is usually a good idea to get a book traditionally published despite getting less in the way of royalties. You get people who read that book and trust you now and you get experience with the process. If you then publish the other books yourself then you still have that experience and those fans.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> Why even bother with Goldberg's comments. With 7000 Kindle copies sold he's not even remotely close to real Kindle bestsellers, so he is ultimately every bit as forgettable as the authors he disses. It's not like he is way out of anybody's league here.


But I think that's his point - he is a successful author, and his moderate success at Kindle (which is nothing to sneeze at all the same) doesn't hold a candle to how he does as a traditionally published author. And yes, he's not a household name, and that's the point too. If you take his whole career into consideration, he's doing better than most of those top kindle authors.

But I think he's underestimating the moderate successes out there.

Camille


----------



## Paul J Coleman (Jun 24, 2010)

I think internet culture is changing everything.  The Drudge Report is "self published" -- but is certainly not perceived as anything low or amateur. The web has the effect of presenting everyone as equals.

Paul


----------



## David Wisehart (Mar 2, 2010)

I was quite pleased with the interview, and thankful that Lee gave me his honest opinion. That's what I wanted. And I'm glad it sparked some healthy debate here and elsewhere. As Kindle authors, we need to thicken our skins. Lee's skepticism about indie authors is widespread in traditional publishing circles, and shared by many readers. The only way to combat that is to write great books. Which is up to us.

Thanks again, Lee.

http://kindle-author.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-lee-goldberg.html

David


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Amanda Hawking said she makes as much in 2 weeks with the new royalty rate as she does in her job in 6 months.


That's a good example. Amanda's three novels are consistently among Kindle's top 500 bestsellers (and have been for a while). As far as I know, she was never traditionally published, yet she's earning lots of money and many readers love her books. I'd estimate that she's sold tens of thousands of copies. Traditional publishers might have rejected her novels, or given her only a small advance and a limited print run.


----------



## CJ West (Feb 24, 2010)

Lee, 

I was really surprised you made this statement as strongly as you did. Saying that 99% of indie authors suck is a bit extreme. I would agree there is a difference, but as an indie writer I resent this stigma because I face it constantly.

I agree with the members here that there are some terrific indie authors. The difficulty is finding them.  You might be right that unprofessional books really hurt indie writers, but saying 99% of us suck makes our task that much harder.

CJ


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

From what I understand from authors signed with small presses, I don't think I could go with a small press at this point.  The prestige/badge of honor would be nice because, yes, some people won't buy indies.  The issue is that I wouldn't be able to make as much money--and people!  I am not making a lot.  But I have a few friends with legit small publishers.  They are making the same monthly sales I am *in my lowest selling books.*  Their cut is close to mine, slightly higher in some cases, lower in others.  Bottom line, I can't make enough money to justify becoming "legitimate" in the eyes of those who think it is necessary.

And more importantly, as others have said--I'm having fun with my writing again.  I'm enjoying the feedback, and I'm enjoying the actual writing.    Amazon has made a huge difference.  Pricing low has opened up books to an audience who used to buy used or get books from the library.  Boards like this one--ESPECIALLY this one, have provided me with a huge opportunity.  I don't intend to waste it.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I too found "99.9" offensive, and I would guess that he was using a figure of speech rather than making a quantitative assessment of  good material vs. bad material.  Yet I think that in our hearts we know there is some truth to what Lee said.  There has to be.  It's human nature that if something is easier and more accessible, more will take advantage of it.  Anybody who has ever fantasized about being a writer is going to try it -- whether they have the talent for it or not.  And the majority of people who read books have probably said to themselves something along the lines of "I could do that too!"
  
It's also true that independent publishing is a new opportunity for legitimately talented writers who aren't winning the agent/query lottery.  I don't have empirical evidence but I'm certain that there has always been a sizable pool of talented writers on the sidelines.  Now, with the new technologies and new business model, these writers are able to get into the game, so to speak, and these are the writers that in my opinion make the "99.9" assessment look far too high.


----------



## J.E.Johnson (Aug 5, 2009)

So I was breezing through what you guys have been saying, and I agree with some of it, but some of it I don't.  Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and although Lee makes some valid points, there are more diplomatic ways of saying them (especially during an interview posted online that will last forever in the world of the internet).  
    I personally am not all that offended.  My book is definitely not among the top 1,000 or the top 10,000.  By Lee's standards, I would probably be grouped with that 99.9% because let's face it, my sales aren't that great.  Yet, I can assure you I graduated from high school (went on to an excellent college even), and that I can write (just check out some of the reviews I've received for my books  ).  
    No, I'm not a 'successful' self-published indie author, but yes, I can write, yes I WILL keep writing, and whether or not my books are considered good enough for the 'proper', traditional publishing houses is, once again, all a matter of opinion.  I may not have 1,000 sales under my belt, but I have a handful of people who have really enjoyed my books, and d*mned if I say it, that in of itself is a sign of success.
-Jenna
ps - this is just my opinion of course


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

I read this interview earlier and was similarly disappointed.

Firstly, there is one thing that I agree with, and that's the fact that it's so easy to self-publish an e book that there's a danger authors will publish before the book is perfected. I said as much in my interview on Nick Daws' blog a few weeks ago. My feelings on this come from my own experience of epublishing, having already gone through the long and meticulous process of publishing a book in print. Even though corrections can be made with POD, they still cost money, and this in itself is an incentive to get things as perfect as you possibly can.

After that, I'm afraid I felt very let down. I've been part of global online writing communities for nearly 2 years and very distinct personality types emerge.
One of these comprises authors who've previously been traditionally published (tho generally not with big publishers or big advances) but their agents (if they still have them) can't place their current work. Whilst some of these authors readily say they were very lucky to get published when they did because the industry has changed and they wouldn't stand a chance now, except with very small new presses; others have a quite different attitude. I've encountered a number who consider themselves superior because of their previous contracts and resent the fact that they are now slumming it with the rest of us.

My own experience of reading indie work has mostly dispelled the myth that most people get rejected because they write rubbish. Of course our books would be better if we had the opportunity to work with professional editors.

But what disappoints me the most is that, while most indie writers selflessly support and encourage one another, the tendency I've noticed with the 'superior' ones is that they use others in the community and give nothing in return, even rubbishing them if it furthers their own careers.
And I'm sorry but, whether or not it's intended, that's the impression I got from this interview.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

I have to say that in a lot of ways, I agree with Lee.  The day I received my Kindle, I perused the store and downloaded ten samples from a random search.  NONE of them were well written.  That's when I came up with the idea of asking authors to suggest their books for me to review, thinking that if one is confident enough in their work to pass me a line a suggestion, knowing I will be honest and potentially have not very nice things to say about their work, that I have a much higher chance of reading something worthwhile.

And this theory has proven to be true.  I'm so glad I did it, because I've read a few gems, and will continue to do so.

That being said, there are many reasons to self-publish.  For myself, I'm 35 years old, and have always thought that my goal in life was to be an author.  I studied English in college until I had to drop out due to financial reasons.  I made a ton of mistakes early on in life and, for a lot of my twenties, led a rather miserable existence.  By the time I pulled my head out of the sludge and picked up my pen again, I was almost thirty.  After finishing my first novel, I queried agents and even a couple small pubs.  I couldn't deal with the wait time.  Three to six months to hear a response, if any came at all?  I guess I'm simply impatient, because I felt i didn't have that time to waste.

However, my purpose in self-publishing, as well as making money, is to build up a readership so I can eventually catch the attention of the pro market.  I came to this conclusion by watching the struggles of someone in a different medium - that being an old high-school friend who's been struggling to make it in the music business for ages.  A producer told he and his band that he liked their music but he couldn't justify dishing out tons of cash on a relative unknown.  He said they should go out and produce their own record, tour, and come back when they have a following.  They did just that, and now they're negotiating with multiple distributors and are very close to "making it".  I figured that if this is what they're doing in the music industry now, could the publishing world be really that much different.

In other words, I'm self-publishing for the purpose of eventually being professionally published.  And, to me, that should be the goal of any author who wants to make this a career.  

(of course, if I ended up making a hundred grand or so with my sales, that might throw a monkey wrench into my ideals, so I guess in a way it's all relative)

Just my opinion, and thanks to Lee and Mary and the rest who have made this thread an informative and interesting read.

Rob


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

I don't believe '99.9%' was intended to be an analytical statement of fact. It was a euphemism for 'a lot'. 
Regardless, it was an unfortunate choice. 

However, I am not offended by it. We hear it every day, and so what?

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed on both sides of the argument. I chose the indie path for my own reasons. I have enjoyed the 'indie life' and, though I have expended countless hours in polishing and producing what I believe to be a quality product, I have been pretty low-key with respect to marketing. This has resulted in decent sales, but nothing that would impress a 'legacy' publisher. Now I make enough money from Kindle royalties to help with book-related expenses; things like conventions, buying more books, travel, and so on. Despite my success (I have more than met my goals with indie publishing) I know that to attain the next level I will need to travel the traditional path. 

I empathize with the indies who are offended, but I grow weary of them at the same time. We knew the job was dangerous when we took it! Lee's comment (99.9%) was unfortunate in that it may have exaggerated the problem, but the problem exists and we all knew it. E-books only make that problem worse in that there isn't even any investment required to e-publish. 

The Kindleboards authors are an elite group in that we are serious about what we do, but very few (if any) of us will attain the level of notoriety or financial success that a first-tier traditional author attains. Choose your path according to your own aspiration, do the best job you can of it, try to assist your fellows in avoiding the pitfalls (while avoiding them yourself), and always take the high road. If someone says something disparaging, defend yourself if you must, but let your work speak for you. Don't complain if the path proves disappointing, but find the reason why. 

We must all share the waters. It's tough enough to stay afloat without turning on one another. Sludge settles to the bottom eventually...try not to sweat it. We're all friends here.


----------



## Debra L Martin (Apr 8, 2010)

J.E.Johnson said:


> So I was breezing through what you guys have been saying, and I agree with some of it, but some of it I don't. Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and although Lee makes some valid points, there are more diplomatic ways of saying them (especially during an interview posted online that will last forever in the world of the internet).
> I personally am not all that offended. My book is definitely not among the top 1,000 or the top 10,000. By Lee's standards, I would probably be grouped with that 99.9% because let's face it, my sales aren't that great. Yet, I can assure you I graduated from high school (went on to an excellent college even), and that I can write (just check out some of the reviews I've received for my books ).
> No, I'm not a 'successful' self-published indie author, but yes, I can write, yes I WILL keep writing, and whether or not my books are considered good enough for the 'proper', traditional publishing houses is, once again, all a matter of opinion. I may not have 1,000 sales under my belt, but I have a handful of people who have really enjoyed my books, and d*mned if I say it, that in of itself is a sign of success.
> -Jenna
> ps - this is just my opinion of course


Jenna, I also fall into this category. My books went through the agent search and I got back "book has commercial potential, but I don't love it enough to represent it." So at least I know that I can string 2 sentences together.

However, I think it's important to realize that we shouldn't take offense at everything people say if we don't agree with it. It's just one's author's opinion. Focus on your writing and getting that next book perfect. I think this is the most important thing for authors to do whether indie or traditionally published.

Deb


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I think of indie publishing as the minor leagues, and minor league ballgames can be pretty entertaining. (I was a big fan of the Durham Bulls when I lived there.) Sometimes the entertainment value is in superb play and sometimes it comes from watching an infielder take a pop-up on the noggin. It's all good.

Where I disagree with Lee is in an author damaging himself or herself by publishing not-ready-for-prime-time material. If it's really no good it won't sell and no one will notice or care.

Nor am I concerned for the "good" self-publishers that mountains of crap, to assume Lee's opinion is accurate, are being self-published for the Kindle or elsewhere. There are plenty of habitual readers who sample and take risks on indies and review for the benefit of more casual readers, who can always rely on rankings and reviews to identify the good stuff.

At any rate, one thing is for sure: the crap is here to stay.


----------



## j1xx (Jul 10, 2010)

> With 7000 Kindle copies sold he's not even remotely close to real Kindle bestsellers


Really? If that's true then I'm seriously underestimating how many copies of these ebooks are being sold. What kind of numbers do "real kindle bestsellers" show? I thought 7000 copies of one title was pretty impressive.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

j1xx said:


> Really? If that's true then I'm seriously underestimating how many copies of these ebooks are being sold. What kind of numbers do "real kindle bestsellers" show? I thought 7000 copies of one title was pretty impressive.


I was curious about hat, as well...


----------



## J.E.Johnson (Aug 5, 2009)

Deb Martin said:


> Jenna, I also fall into this category. My books went through the agent search and I got back "book has commercial potential, but I don't love it enough to represent it." So at least I know that I can string 2 sentences together.
> 
> However, I think it's important to realize that we shouldn't take offense at everything people say if we don't agree with it. It's just one's author's opinion. Focus on your writing and getting that next book perfect. I think this is the most important thing for authors to do whether indie or traditionally published.
> 
> Deb


I agree - just thought I'd throw in my 'rebellious' response . But you're right - can't take offense or else one will waste all one's energy on being disgruntled. Also, we must remember that things said online and in print can often come across differently than what the writer intended . . . .
-Jenna


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

j1xx said:


> Really? If that's true then I'm seriously underestimating how many copies of these ebooks are being sold. What kind of numbers do "real kindle bestsellers" show? I thought 7000 copies of one title was pretty impressive.


This has been a fascinating thread! I even went back and skimmed through the older one Lee Goldberg referenced. Now I'm trying to decide if I'm a knock-it-out-of-the-park self-pubbed wonder (I've sold more than 100 print copies, and only 94.5% of my sales were to immediate family members or people whose lives I've saved) or a secret, disastrous failure (having never sold 7000 of _anything_ in my entire life).

If S&S offered me a contract, I would leap at it. Not only for the wider distribution, but also because I've come to the realization that I can't let any of my books go out of print. With two books this is manageable, but as I write more it could become a garage nightmare and lead to marital problems.

Good luck to all. Writers write because they love it and can't help it.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

j1xx said:


> Really? If that's true then I'm seriously underestimating how many copies of these ebooks are being sold. What kind of numbers do "real kindle bestsellers" show? I thought 7000 copies of one title was pretty impressive.


That is actually a lot of copies. I'd be surprised if there were more than ten self-published mystery/suspense novels on Kindle that have sold more over the last year.


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I'm the equivalent of the small organic farmer who makes a living at the farm markets, selling direct to the customers rather than dealing with the large processors and wholesalers. And if I feel like selling crocheted doilies too, well, heck, that's a part of the business.
> 
> Camille


On a sidebar, Camille, I'd love to chat with you. Love you farmers. I blog and do publicity articles for my local farmers market, so I have a very soft spot for small farmers. Have you read Novella Carpenter's (traditionally-published, damn her eyes!) FARM CITY?

Christina


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

CNDudley said:


> On a sidebar, Camille, I'd love to chat with you. Love you farmers. I blog and do publicity articles for my local farmers market, so I have a very soft spot for small farmers. Have you read Novella Carpenter's (traditionally-published, d*mn her eyes!) FARM CITY?


Key words there are "equivalent of". Yes, I have sold veggies at stands, but I don't do it now. I was just making a metaphor.

Camille


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

CNDudley said:


> On a sidebar, Camille, I'd love to chat with you. Love you farmers. I blog and do publicity articles for my local farmers market, so I have a very soft spot for small farmers. Have you read Novella Carpenter's (traditionally-published, d*mn her eyes!) FARM CITY?
> 
> Christina


I don't know what you want to know or chat about, but I have an organic veggie garden. It's mostly for family, but I trade for fresh eggs or other veggies from neighbors; whatever people might have to offer. I don't do the stands, although my parents also garden and they will be selling at an organic produce senior citizens center this year (they also donate a lot of stuff there.) They are in NM, I'm in Texas.


----------



## j1xx (Jul 10, 2010)

> I'd be surprised if there were more than ten self-published mystery/suspense novels on Kindle that have sold more over the last year.


I went back and checked a few of the big kindle publishing names I know about, and I can't find anyone who sold more than 7000 copies of a single title in a year other than Konrath, and he's not an indie author, so he doesn't count. Boyd Morrison sold 7000 copies, but that was for three titles that were later picked up by Simon and Schuster. John Rector sold over 5000 copies of a single title, and Karen McQuestion sold a lot more than 7000 copies, but that was for multiple titles. All three of these writers now have big 6 publishing deals, and/or movie options.

These three are considered bestselling kindle authors, and kindle success stories. If they didn't sell 7000 copies of a single title then I'm either out of the loop, or the guy who made the original post doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

archer said:


> I don't believe '99.9%' was intended to be an analytical statement of fact. It was a euphemism for 'a lot'.
> Regardless, it was an unfortunate choice.
> 
> However, I am not offended by it. We hear it every day, and so what?
> ...


Well said, Archer. You ought to consider writing a book.  Oh, wait....

Betsy


----------



## Chris J (Sep 18, 2009)

David Wisehart said:


> I was quite pleased with the interview, and thankful that Lee gave me his honest opinion. That's what I wanted. And I'm glad it sparked some healthy debate here and elsewhere. As Kindle authors, we need to thicken our skins. Lee's skepticism about indie authors is widespread in traditional publishing circles, and shared by many readers. The only way to combat that is to write great books. Which is up to us.
> 
> Thanks again, Lee.
> 
> ...


I thought it was a good interview, and have to agree with the gist of what Lee said. But I haven't downloaded thousands of samples to confirm his percentages. He might have been off by a few percentage points, but his point was that most Indie Kindle Authors are simply taking desperate stabs at publishing. He might be right, but it is doubtfull that the percentage he used is.

Lee has been posting helpful information here at kindleboards, so he can't be all bad. Well, OK.........maybe his "helpful posts" were just to crow about his own success. But regardless of his motives, he has been quite helpfull.

It is probably true that anyone who posts "helpfull" information here is simply crowing about their own success. In fact, that is probably true about "helpfull" anything, found anywhere. Some people do like to help others, but there is usually a hidden agenda behind "free help."

We call it "paying it forward," as we "help" others. What we mean is that we hope someone will buy our books, and perhaps "discover" us, if we post "helpfull" answers to questions here, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, most of us "indies" don't even get to be accused of "crowing" about our success though, lol.

"Hat's off to ya," Lee.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm sure some of what Lee said is true. But to say such things about fellow authors (good or bad) is not quite right, in my opinion. This gives an image of someone with a sneery, superior attitude.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

j1xx said:


> I went back and checked a few of the big kindle publishing names I know about, and I can't find anyone who sold more than 7000 copies of a single title in a year other than Konrath, and he's not an indie author, so he doesn't count. Boyd Morrison sold 7000 copies, but that was for three titles that were later picked up by Simon and Schuster. John Rector sold over 5000 copies of a single title, and Karen McQuestion sold a lot more than 7000 copies, but that was for multiple titles. All three of these writers now have big 6 publishing deals, and/or movie options.
> 
> These three are considered bestselling kindle authors, and kindle success stories. If they didn't sell 7000 copies of a single title then I'm either out of the loop, or the guy who made the original post doesn't know what he's talking about.


One of my titles has sold over 5,000 copies in the last year and it's always ranked in the top ten or twenty when I compare indie titles in mystery/suspense using Jungle search. That's how I knew 7,000 was a lot.


----------



## AlexJouJou (May 16, 2010)

I agree that this is a fascinating thread! Fascinating!

I'm not an author - I'm a reader (although I've tried at various times to write books it is just not for me - I love y'all who do it though!!)

When I first got my Kindle I anticipated that I would be downloading bestseller's and reading a bunch of series books on it. Which I do - but not nearly as much as I anticipated. 

What's really happened is that #1. I've discovered a great community here (and some at amazon as well). I'm thrilled to be part of it and #2. I found indie authors. The two are related. 

I've downloaded a huge amount of indie authors here - I have not read them all but many of the ones I've read I have enjoyed immensely - if you want names my top picks (to date) would be David's 33A.D and Amanda's My Blood Approves series. There are a couple as well that I haven't cared for - more related to book content than writing in most cases. Just not my cuppa. 

MBL is that I love a good story - I'm not real particular about where I get it. I expect to get some duds - and I'll tell you I put down the last Sookie Stackhouse (major published author with a TV series to boot!) to read David's 33A.D. and regreted it not a lick. In fact I was pretty mad I spent $13 on the Sookie because it's just awful 

And, due to the pricing, if I don’t like a novel that I paid $2 or $3 for I shelve it (figuratively) and move on. I have a harder time doing that with books of $10 or more. 

I agree with Lee on several points related to the profession of writing itself – contacts, networks, publicity, etc I think can be very important (depending on your ultimate goal) and all of those factors should go into any decision to self publish. I started in a job I didn’t really want because I needed the experience and background to get the one I did. I got the job eventually (took me longer than I thought though!) based on my past experience. 

I, for one, am glad that all you indie’s are publishing on places like amazon. It’s given me a much wider and diverse reading choice. I’m kind of selfish  

I do also think, just like with everything, there is a “right place right time”. Look at Susan Boyle. Definitely a good example of that!


----------



## j1xx (Jul 10, 2010)

> One of my titles has sold over 5,000 copies in the last year


This brings up another side to Kindle publishing. If you've sold that many copies and haven't been offered a publishing deal, does that mean publishing on the Kindle as a way to break into the industry has passed?


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

j1xx said:


> This brings up another side to Kindle publishing. If you've sold that many copies and haven't been offered a publishing deal, does that mean publishing on the Kindle as a way to break into the industry has passed?


Boyd Morrison and Jon Rector had agents who brought the sales to the attention of major publishers. I've split with my agent, but it's always an option to go find another and do the same, but it'd actually have to be a pretty sweet deal for me to give up rights. The ebook market is just taking off. It's less than ten percent of the book market now and promises to be 50 percent within five years.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Here's another wrinkle for me in this discussion:

What we're talking about, mostly, is making the choice between Traditional and Indie.  We might make a different choice for each book, or for our whole career, or for a phase of our career.  What's right for me now? Later?  What's right for this book?

When I started out with indies (not that long ago) my idea was to publish my off-genre non-commercial stuff only.  I really enjoy the publishing end of things and it would be fun, and those books will only find their audience that way anyway. And I had a few weird projects that I wanted to write JUST for indie publishing, although I reserved my more commercial mysteries for traditional publishing.

But then I found that I really really really really enjoyed the publishing end of it.  And I am great believer in having what the business gurus call "A big fat hairy-ass goal" (a BFHAG).  Just ONE.  I prefer to give my all to an effort.  When I weighed the pros and cons of each direction for my more commercial books.... the scales came out equal.  So I decided to throw myself into indie publishing for a while....

And now, irony of ironies, the series that I was developing in the back of my head specifically for indie publishing is making me rethink traditional.  It something that's quirky in a potentially commercial way - it's a variation on Steampunk.  It's enough different that it might be hard to market myself.  But it's also close enough to the groove that it could benefit from the kind of push a publisher gives it.  (I.e. "next great thing" - which is not something you can say for yourself.)

On the other hand, it will take a while to write, and it will take a while to market, and then it will take a while to come out, by which time the moment in the marketplace will have already passed.  And even though it's a variation on steampunk, I'm not sure it suits the sensibility of that audience.  Which means building an audience from scratch anyway - which traditional publishers do not do.

Camille


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

Goldberg may be correct that some of the stuff on Kindle is not up to his standard, but who is he to set the standard for everyone?  Sure it would be nice to have a publisher, but how many of can even get an agent, or even one that will read your work?  As a successful writer (I guess) he should encourage rather than disparage the rest of us.  In my opinion he displays an unhealthy dose of arrogance and egoism.  I had to quit high school after the tenth grade to support my mother, or accept welfare.  I chose to go to work.  I will bet, generally speaking, that I am a hell of a lot smarter than Goldberg, and without a doubt, much better looking, even at age 74.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

anaconda said:


> Goldberg may be correct that some of the stuff on Kindle is not up to his standard, but who is he to set the standard for everyone? Sure it would be nice to have a publisher, but how many of can even get an agent, or even one that will read your work? As a successful writer (I guess) he should encourage rather than disparage the rest of us. In my opinion he displays an unhealthy dose of arrogance and egoism. I had to quit high school after the tenth grade to support my mother, or accept welfare. I chose to go to work. I will bet, generally speaking, that I am a hell of a lot smarter than Goldberg, and without a doubt, much better looking, even at age 74.


Bravo! And hey, with a screen name like Anaconda you're scarier than Goldberg for sure...!!!

Welcome to Kindleboards!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

j1xx said:


> Really? If that's true then I'm seriously underestimating how many copies of these ebooks are being sold. What kind of numbers do "real kindle bestsellers" show? I thought 7000 copies of one title was pretty impressive.


"The Walk" currently has a sales rank of 800. Not a bestseller, but still pretty damn good.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

anaconda said:


> Goldberg may be correct that some of the stuff on Kindle is not up to his standard, but who is he to set the standard for everyone? Sure it would be nice to have a publisher, but how many of can even get an agent, or even one that will read your work? As a successful writer (I guess) he should encourage rather than disparage the rest of us. In my opinion he displays an unhealthy dose of arrogance and egoism. I had to quit high school after the tenth grade to support my mother, or accept welfare. I chose to go to work. I will bet, generally speaking, that I am a hell of a lot smarter than Goldberg, and without a doubt, much better looking, even at age 74.


Some people claim that agents and editors are the gatekeepers; they know what's good, they bring us what's good, and they shield us from the millions of mediocre titles.

To that I say: nonsense.

Publishing is like Hollywood; most of the time, it's who you know. Connections are worth a hundred times more than talent.

But in the Kindle store, talent is what counts. Yes, some authors promote more than others, but ultimately readers won't spread word of mouth about bad books. And the good books will be discovered. They'll surface into the bestselling ranks in their categories. Readers will talk about them. And copies will sell.

Kindle is like the wilderness; the fittest survive. And that's how I like it.

Lee Goldberg is a talented and successful writer, and he makes some good points. But if I were giving advice to a young writer today, I would say, "Don't worry about agents or editors telling you what you can't do. Write the best you can, hone your craft, send your manuscript through workshops, and be the best writer you can be. Once you believe you're good enough, go into ebooks; this is the ultimate trial by fire."


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> There's a TON of ...just...total...crap... out there. Unless you've read slush, you truly have no idea how bad it can be. And now a lot of those authors are releasing stuff without a thought as to why their work was rejected in the first place. THAT is the sludge that Lee is referring to, I think. And yes, it does exist, although not in the percentages he alluded to. At least, I don't think so.


Man, is that true.

I was the judge for two Writer's Digest Self-Published Novel contests, and for six WD Short Story contests. I had to endure well over 15,000 stories and books.

I found 1 that was truly great. A handful that maybe could have been published. And the rest was unpublishable.

I think that's about 99.9%.

Now do self-pubbed Kindle books have the same percentages?

I don't think it's quite as bad. As some may remember, I bought over fifty ebooks from authors on the boards here, when i was pushing Endurance. I haven't had time to read any, but my wife read both Deed to Death and Thin Blood and loved them both. She also attempted to read six others, and never got beyond a few pages.

I trust my wife's opinion. She's hardly the final voice in what is good and what sucks, but she's well read and able to articulate why something works and why it doesn't.

I don't disagree with Lee that there is a lot of crap out there. I do disagree that trying for a print publisher first is the way to go. I'll never go that route again. In the last four weeks, I earned over $17,000 on Kindle. Even if a publisher offered me big money, I'd turn it down. And I'm sure there will be others who do just as well, if not better, than I'm doing.

Your goal, as always, should be to write good books. If your books are good, you have no need to get upset when someone tells you the majority of indie ebooks are lousy.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

So what if so many indie ebooks are lousy?  Most websites in the world are pointless too.  Most youtube clips are dumb.  People ignore the bad; the good stuff succeeds.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

j1xx said:


> If they didn't sell 7000 copies of a single title then I'm either out of the loop, or the guy who made the original post doesn't know what he's talking about.


I've sold 18,000 copies of a single title, THE LIST.


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

Since I made the brag that I was better looking than Lee Goldberg I will post a picture, if someone will tell me how.  Then you can be the judge.

Dave


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

While some may think I don't know what I'm talking about, the fact of the matter is that over the lifetime of a Kindle title 7000 copies sold is, while not bad at all, not that impressive - particularly not enough to call it a "Bestseller" the way it was presented in the interview. That was my key point.

As for real sales numbers, in order to break into the Top 10 sellers in the Kindle store - and this what I really call a bestseller, not a book that hovers at the 500 mark - you will get in to the 10,000 sales per month mark. to climb up that ladder to the #5 spot, let's say you will look at something like over 20,000 copies in a month, and in order to reach the top, well that is really anyone's guess but considering how incredibly hit-driven these things are I would not be surprised to look at 50,000 units a month. And, no, I am not making these numbers up...

As for Goldberg's 99.9% while I don't agree with that number - and I am positive neither does he if he's honest - I think it was a figurative number that he just used, trying to point out that there is a lot of amateurism and naïvety in the indie eBook market, that does not reflect well on the industry, and I do agree with that in general.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

DArenson said:


> So what if so many indie ebooks are lousy? Most websites in the world are pointless too. Most youtube clips are dumb. People ignore the bad; the good stuff succeeds.


That, my friend, is sadly a complete misconception. Your formula is completely flawed. While it is true that bad stuff will most likely fail, just because something is good does not mean it will be successful. It is not a commutative scenario, unfortunately.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> That, my friend, is sadly a complete misconception. Your formula is completely flawed. While it is true that bad stuff will most likely fail, just because something is good does not mean it will be successful. It is not a commutative scenario, unfortunately.


Well, yes. Perhaps a more accurate "formula" would be: All the bestsellers will be "good", but not all books that are "good" will succeed. Of course, "good" is very subjective. I personally don't think the Twilight books are "good", but it's hard to argue with success.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I agree, and sadly there is no recipe for success. A whole lot still has to do with being at the right place at the right time with the right product.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

anaconda said:


> Since I made the brag that I was better looking than Lee Goldberg I will post a picture, if someone will tell me how. Then you can be the judge.
> 
> Dave


Hi Dave, (Another Dave!!! We have several. They've tried to gang up on us non-Dave types, but they can't succeed, even with vamps and zombies on their side!!!)

The very first thread on the Writer's Cafe has instructions for how to put pictures in the profile or signature link. It's right at the top of the forum. I'm not so great a putting a picture inside a post unless it's of a book. That I can do.

But don't worry. We at Kindleboards accept all the faces--good, bad, ugly, pretty, zombie, non-zombie. We even have lots of faces to use instead of our own:    

Those are my favorite ones!!!

Maria


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> I agree, and sadly there is no recipe for success. A whole lot still has to do with being at the right place at the right time with the right product.


Maybe I was overly optimistic; I'm sure many great books will go unnoticed, even on Kindle. But my bottom line is that overall, jumping into Kindle and emerging onto its bestsellers list is a BETTER indicator of quality than surviving an editor's slush pile. A handful of people control publishing and they miss many great books, and connections are a big part of how to succeed in this world. But if you can upload your book to DTP, somehow find readers, great reviews, and word-of-mouth among the hundreds-of-thousands of Kindle books--that to me really means something.


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> Hi Dave, (Another Dave!!! We have several. They've tried to gang up on us non-Dave types, but they can't succeed, even with vamps and zombies on their side!!!)
> 
> The very first thread on the Writer's Cafe has instructions for how to put pictures in the profile or signature link. It's right at the top of the forum. I'm not so great a putting a picture inside a post unless it's of a book. That I can do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Regarding Lee’s comments, I know there is a lot of bad writing out there in the Indie world, but I don’t know the percentage because I just don’t have the time to read through so many books.  And I do confess to relying on others to winnow the wheat out from the chaff for me, whether that’s through the traditional publishing vetting process, or from the ranking numbers on the KB lists.  As someone who is in both camps, like Lee, it is very frustrating to know that there is this perception of poor quality for Indie stuff.  But, at the same time, publising house, in my opinion, seem to be fixated on rolling out edless iterations of whatever trend catches on, ignoring other books.

BTW, I recall driving through the NYC area one year on a vacation with the wife and kids.  We were exhausted and hadn't made a reservation for a motel.  I had to pull into this place and we all straggled out and into a room which was a disaster.  We were so tired and did not know how far to the next one that we just put up with it, not even drawing down the covers to sleep.  My point, this hotel made a sale.  But I'll certainly never buy again.  And that's what a poorly written Indie book will get, an occasional sale, but never a return customer.

Anyway, what can I do about this stuff?  I can only work harder at improving my own writing, and at pitching agencies or anyone else who might possibly give my books a look.  I do recall reading one interview with either an agent or an editor at a big house and he said, regarding Indies, something like, “well, they’ll never be reviewed,” implying that no reputable book review outfit or newspaper would touch them.  And, what was left unsaid was that this would be the kiss of death.  Well, perhaps, but there is new life for books on Kindle, and that’s why we’re here.

Another thought, there are people who will upload anything (I've known some), who don’t want any criticism or help, and that’s sad and it polutes the waters, making it hard for everyone else.  I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.  In fact, it will probably get worse.  Some industry experts predict a two-tiered system, with ‘vetted’ works at the top, and a vast pool of Indie stuff at the bottom.  The top tier would probably be your in-houses race horses, Daniel Steele, Clive Cussler, whoever.  

So, put on your taps, get your clown suit drycleaned, practice that guitar, that magic trick, whatever, and prepare to promote your book.  And don't forget to smile!


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I think the real problem with big publishing houses is not so much that they turn down bad books, the problem is much deeper rooted, and few people seem to realize this.

Publishers are corporations, businesses in it to make money. They will never judge a book purely on its quality. The main factor that drives a decision in these companies is how well it can be marketed and sold. The analysis of the current marketplace will decide what sells and what will not. It is not even real empirical proof, it is merely a data set that is used to justify arbitrary decisions and investment risks. I've never been a believer of the idea that a "hit" is inevitably good. There is plenty of music out there that I consider complete crap and yet it sells in the millions. The same is true for books. There are many real best-selling books out there where I have to ask myself, who likes this kind of stuff. Popularity and quality, while occasionally coupled, do not necessarily go hand in hand.

So, once one understands that publishers make their decision based purely on economic standpoints, the next problem is that oftentimes they are not able to evaluate a book based on its own merits. The slush-readers and editors are so caught up in their own make-believe bubble that they follow a set of guidelines that weed out certain books that don't meet THEIR standards - these standards are arbitrary at best and often come from antiquated ideals and the misconception that all readers are 150% literate and appreciate nothing less.

Let's face it, unless a book is truly horribly written, the majority of people is not able to locate grammatical errors, punctuation errors or even certain spelling mistakes. I mean, the majority of people on the internet still write "definately" - a word that never existed - without ever taking exception with it. It is this high-literary approach of editors and publishers that oftentimes makes it impossible for even great books to get close to a publishing deal. However, the way I look at it is, that everything can be fixed, but then it becomes expensive and we're getting back to the "business" pitfall of publishers. It needs to make money, fast and cheaply otherwise it is "forgettable."


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Guido Henkel said:


> While some may think I don't know what I'm talking about, the fact of the matter is that over the lifetime of a Kindle title 7000 copies sold is, while not bad at all, not that impressive


The "lifetime" of my book THE WALK as a Kindle title has been slightly over 12 months. And _I_ didn't call it a "bestseller," the interviewer did. I have no idea if those sales are impressive or not, all I know is that they stunned and pleased me, especially for an out-of-print book that was, essentially, dead before the Kindle came along.



Guido Henkel said:


> As for Goldberg's 99.9% while I don't agree with that number - and I am positive neither does he if he's honest - I think it was a figurative number that he just used, trying to point out that there is a lot of amateurism and naïvety in the indie eBook market, that does not reflect well on the industry, and I do agree with that in general.


I have been greatly amused by how many people have fixated on the 99.9% as if I was a mathematician doing a scientific study. Guido and Betsy have it right... I was saying that most of the self-published titles _that I read or sampled_ were awful. I didn't say it was a rigorous, scientific study...nor did I say I was referring to_ all_ self-published books. Go back and read my quote:



> I have a sampled hundreds of self-published books on the Kindle... and 99.9% of them aren't just awful, they border on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school.


The number 99.9% was a way of saying the majority of, a lot of, most of, almost all of _what I read_ was hideous, unpublishable garbage. The people fixating on that number are missing the point. If I have a regret, it's that I used the present tense instead of the past tense. I should have said "and 99.9% of them weren't just awful, they bordered on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school." I think the tense may be contributing to some of the misinterpretation of my quote.

All that said, this has been a lively, fascinating and interesting discussion.

Lee

PS - I have no doubt that fellow who said he is better looking than me most certainly is.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I've sold 18,000 copies of a single title, THE LIST.


Vicki Tyley sold around 20,000 copies of Thin Blood in two months. She at one point got to #6 on the Kindle bestsellers list.

But I will say that 7,000 in a year is impressive to me. I've sold 700 in three months. Not bad for a totally unknown person, but at this rate I'll only be at 2800 in a year.

However, if you compare that to most self-published people 5 years ago... heck I'm sitting pretty. And people are actually reading my book. That's what means the most to me.

Vicki


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> The number 99.9% was a way of saying the majority of, a lot of, most of, almost all of _what I read_ was hideous, unpublishable garbage. The people fixating on that number are missing the point. If I have a regret, it's that I used the present tense instead of the past tense. I should have said "and 99.9% of them weren't just awful, they bordered on illiterate, as if they were written by people who never graduated high school." I think the tense may be contributing to some of the misinterpretation of my quote.


Not to pick a fight, really... I'm just really curious. Have you really sampled _hundreds_ of indie books on the kindle? Or is that an exaggeration? Where did you find hundreds to sample? Is there an indie search on Amazon I'm missing? Also, why did you do this? Just for fun? How long did it take? Was this recently?

I'm just curious... because you mentioned judging submissions... maybe some of your opinion comes from that rather then actual Kindle books.

Again, not picking a fight. You're entitled to your opinion. I have just had a different experience with Kindle books. Do some indie books need work? Yes. Would I call most of them unpublishable garbage? No.

Vicki


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

Maria,

Thanks for your help.  However the instructions are rather arcane, and I was unable to fathom them.  I have sent a message asking for help.  I guess the whole thing is academic now, as Goldberg has admitted that I am better looking.  

Dave


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Not to pick a fight, really... I'm just really curious. Have you really sampled _hundreds_ of indie books on the kindle? Or is that an exaggeration? Where did you find hundreds to sample? Is there an indie search on Amazon I'm missing? Also, why did you do this? Just for fun? How long did it take? Was this recently?
> 
> I'm just curious... because you mentioned judging submissions... maybe some of your opinion comes from that rather then actual Kindle books.
> 
> ...


As soon as I got my Kindle, I downloaded countless samples of self-published books...almost every one that I came across (I still do). I also downloaded scores of free self-published books (most of which were so bad, that even free they cost too much)... just to see what was out there, to get the "lay of the land," so to speak...to know something about the market I was entering. I still have tons of self-published samples on my Kindle that I haven't gotten to yet.

To be brutally honest, most of the time I can't make it through the samples. I've probably bought, after reading the samples, only a couple dozen self-published books. Of those, there were only one or two that I enjoyed. Most I gave up on before finishing. Maybe I'm just bad at picking books, or it's the genres that I choose (mostly mysteries and thrillers). Or maybe my standards are out of step with the general public...or the readers here. It's just one man's opinion.

Even before I got my Kindle, perhaps because I have a very visible blog, people were sending me unsolicited copies of their self-published stuff (and they still do, even though I wish they wouldn't). Today alone three people from this board have offered to send me their books. And, of course, I've also come across self-published books at festivals and conferences where I have received copies as freebies in my book-bag.

So yes, I have been exposed to a lot of self-published books. Hundreds may be an exaggeration... or it might be accurate. I haven't honestly kept count. But whatever the actual number, the vast majority _of what I've sampled_ has been awful.

Lee


----------



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

That's funny, I was actually going to say a drunken squirrel monkey with an old Commodore 64 could do a better job writing Grubs, but somehow slipped my mind when writing the review.... 

David Dalglish


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> That's funny, I was actually going to say a drunken squirrel monkey with an old Commodore 64 could do a better job writing Grubs, but somehow slipped my mind when writing the review....
> 
> David Dalglish


Shhh! You're giving away all my secrets now, Oligart!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Two more thoughts....

Sampling error: How are we picking our samples when we try to generalize what percentage is crap?  The thing about the internet is that it sorts for you.  You have to define something to find it - and so in the end, we tend to find some variation on what we are looking for.  On Amazon, in particular, it's hard to find a sampling on indies that is pure and unfiltered.  If you're looking for that, you might be best off going to Smashwords and looking at every sample uploaded in the last several hours.  And because single publishers and authors sometimes flood with a whole bunch of submissions, you'd have to do that a couple of times to get a better sampling.  (I expect, if people here did that, they'd find a lot more crap - which is not to diss Smashwords. It's just that it's easier to find the unfiltered stuff.)

If you're looking for crap, it's easy to find - just zero in on the really amateurish covers and book descriptions.  If you did that, you might find some good books hidden, but you would cut nearly all of them out.  On the other hand, most of us want to avoid the real crap, so we bypass the books with unattractive covers without even thinking about it. We just don't see them.  They blend in with all the stuff we're not interested in, even if that lack of interest is not a quality question.

The other point - so what is crap anyway?

I do think a part of the problem with the publishing industry isn't really related to the business.  It's actually something that comes from the writers.  Somebody posted in another thread about "conventions" and how they differ from rules.  It's a competitive industry, and we build up these little proofs of sophistication.  There are conventions that show we know the rules and are professional enough to abide by them.  Proper manuscript presentation.  Submission etiquette.  Kill adverbs.  No passive voice.  Avoid prologues at all cost!  No first person unless you're brilliant at it!  Pretty soon, you end up with a lot of rules that have the "unless you're brilliant at it" behind them.  Which means they aren't really rules - they're just warnings that certain practices are hard to pull off.

And the odds are, the people who are any good are smart enough to follow these conventions until they have proven themselves well enough to get away with breaking them.  And odds are the people who ignore these conventions before they have proven themselves, do so because they aren't sophisticated enough to pull it off.  So I'm not saying these conventions are bad.

But I am saying that they can put blinders on us.  I remember when Harry Potter first came out, all the YA fantasy writers were completely scandalized that such an amateurish effort could ever get published. The problem was that all these writers had unconsciously come up with all these marks of sophistication that were just something internal to their own culture.  And in the process, they had completely eliminated some unsophisticated elements that the audience wanted and loved.

I think we're on the edge of a new pulp era, where some of that "crap" is going to do well.  And yes, it will be amateurish, and badly written, and I know I will hate most of it - but its audience won't.

So I'm not sure that the 99.9 percent crap is even relevant to the discussion.

Camille


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> As soon as I got my Kindle, I downloaded countless samples of self-published books...almost every one that I came across (I still do). I also downloaded scores of free self-published books (most of which were so bad, that even free they cost too much)... just to see what was out there, to get the "lay of the land," so to speak...to know something about the market I was entering. I still have tons of self-published samples on my Kindle that I haven't gotten to yet.
> 
> To be brutally honest, most of the time I can't make it through the samples. I've probably bought, after reading the samples, only a couple dozen self-published books. Of those, there were only one or two that I enjoyed. Most I gave up on before finishing. Maybe I'm just bad at picking books, or it's the genres that I choose (mostly mysteries and thrillers). Or maybe my standards are out of step with the general public...or the readers here. It's just one man's opinion.


And maybe you're just pickier than I am. (Although I'm pretty picky... right guys? Well, nit-picky might be more accurate.)

One thing to consider, as more and more serious authors who have either a) been published by a small press but are now out of print, or b) got an agent but couldn't sell the book realize that self-publishing is a viable option, I think the number of good self-published books will increase.

But again, we each have our own opinions as to what is good and what is rubbish.

Vicki


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> The other point - so what is crap anyway?


I know enough about narrative structure to see when the minimum basic requirements of storytelling aren't being met.

There are genres I don't like, and popular writers i don't like, but if these books were traditionally published they meet a minimum quality standard. They have hooks, and conflict, and dynamic characters. I may not like them, but they aren't crap.

Crap is when a story makes newbie mistakes, most of which take the reader out of the story by breaking the suspension of disbelief. There is a much higher percentage of this happening with indie books than with books vetted by traditional publishers, and it goes beyond mere personal taste. It's a matter of craft, style, experience, and talent.

While reviewing for WD, I got to where I could spot a good story by the fourth sentence. And I was always right. Those that began badly NEVER got better.

Self-publishing allows for newbie authors to put their work in front of paying audiences before it is ready to be seen, something that doesn't happen often with traditional print.

That said, I don't find this problematic. Readers will pick out what they like, and warn others against the crap.


----------



## David Derrico (Nov 18, 2009)

Even Lee admitted that "99.9%" is probably an exaggeration, and not intended to be an exact, scientific figure. He probably meant "95% - 99%," and that might even be right. Maybe the number is 50%, maybe 75%, maybe 95%, who knows? But EVEN if 99% of all the self-published stuff is awful, it doesn't matter. Because people don't pick books completely at random. I'd bet that you could take the bottom 99% of indie slush and it wouldn't sell as much as Konrath. Or me, for that matter. So, it might be 99% "by volume," but the pure dreck is probably less than a quarter -- maybe WAY less -- by total sales. So it's not like millions of people are reading all the crap that's out there. Because the authors who just threw something together with a crappy cover and mistake-ridden description aren't doing smart promotion, and great formatting, and (I'd bet) aren't getting more than a handful of sales.

Every time I see that "500,000 books were self-published on CreateSpace and Lulu this year" (or whatever the number is), I cringe, because I'm sure the vast majority of them are awful. But I'll never see them, and neither will most readers. Readers will find Konrath, and Goldberg, and those of us who post here and who spent time and effort on learning our craft, covers, editing, descriptions, promotion, etc. So the actual percentage "by volume" is a moot point, IMHO.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I know enough about narrative structure to see when the minimum basic requirements of storytelling aren't being met.....
> 
> Self-publishing allows for newbie authors to put their work in front of paying audiences before it is ready to be seen, something that doesn't happen often with traditional print.
> That said, I don't find this problematic. Readers will pick out what they like, and warn others against the crap.


Agreed on that, but I do think when we get into these discussions about what is crap, we often generalize about things that aren't so obvious - like my fantasy friends did about Harry Potter. They were complaining because Rowling was breaking rules they considered "basic elements of storytelling" and had just been advising their followers to never do. (These were all pros.)

After we chat it out, we start sorting the real rules from the conventions.

The other thing, though, is there is an audience for really crappy amateur fiction. I know people who made a good living at writing fanfic and selling mimeographed zines at conventions. Now it's true, a lot of them were riding on other people's trademarks but even when they had to abandon the trademarked characters and just went off on their own, they had a strong fan base. And the writing was BAAADDDDD. I don't mean just arguably not-to-my-taste.

I'm not saying that the awful writers are going to have an easy time of it, but I am SURE there will be a healthy amateur market out there. The literary equivalent of YouTube. And I agree, it's not a problem.

Because once the culture establishes those markets, those with real storytelling skills can exploit them. (Look at how Paramount built an industry around the Trek fandom and the like with media tie-in books.)

Camille


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

anaconda said:


> Maria,
> 
> Thanks for your help. However the instructions are rather arcane, and I was unable to fathom them. I have sent a message asking for help. I guess the whole thing is academic now, as Goldberg has admitted that I am better looking.
> 
> Dave


Finally, a reasonable Dave that the non-Daves can relate to!


----------



## MJWare (Jun 25, 2010)

I've done a fair number of interviews (not as a writer). Everything from e-mail, to radio, to live TV.

One thing I can tell you is how easy it is for something to come out wrong. I once quoted monthly sales and gave the annual number. 
It got national coverage--BIG mistake. 

My point is, it's so easy for something you say to come out wrong, or to be taken wrong (I've even been deliberately misquoted). Then, you are fun position of defending yourself.

So, 99.9% was too high a number, oh well. I say, no one's career was ruined over it, so let's cut him some slack.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

It's getting a bit published authors vs indie authors here. A shame, but not entirely surprising, I guess...

Lee, Joe:

I challenge you to both read my book. If you both thinks its crap I'll delete it from the web...the flip side is if you like it you have to promote it on your websites


----------



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

NickSpalding said:


> I challenge you to both read my book. If you both thinks its crap I'll delete it from the web...the flip side is if you like it you have to promote it on your websites


Just all or nothing with you, ain't it Nick?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

One man's crap is another man's fertilizer for ideas.

And it depends on what you're looking for.  I'm not looking at books to see whether or not they are "well-written" (which is very subjective), I'm looking at books to find something to READ.  Sometimes something fun, sometimes something mindless, sometimes something thought-provoking. And I've found all of that in indie books.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> I challenge you to both read my book. If you both thinks its crap I'll delete it from the web...the flip side is if you like it you have to promote it on your websites


One could issue the same challenge to you, Rick.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Seven pages now. Do I hear eight? Nine?


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I want to disagree with a statement I read a few posts back, about all bestsellers being good.  Sorry, they're best sellers because people buy them, it's not a testament to their quality.  I've picked up some best sellers in various genres and very quickly put them back down.

Once again, good is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

scarlet said:


> I want to disagree with a statement I read a few posts back, about all bestsellers being good. *Sorry, they're best sellers because people buy them, it's not a testament to their quality.* I've picked up some best sellers in various genres and very quickly put them back down.
> 
> Once again, good is in the eye of the beholder.


*cough* Twilight *cough, cough*

oh, man...sorry about that. Got something sparkly caught in my throat...


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> *cough* Twilight *cough, cough*
> 
> oh, man...sorry about that. Got something sparkly caught in my throat...


BINGO! That's one, although I was thinking the Life of Pi.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

NickSpalding said:


> It's getting a bit published authors vs indie authors here. A shame, but not entirely surprising, I guess...


That could also be said, "It's getting a bit experienced authors who wrote millions of words and critiqued millions of words vs new authors who haven't."

I don't believe dues need to be paid before you become a good writers. But writing a lot, professionally judging stories, working with many editors, and learning craft in an industry that pays you, certainly gives our opinions some weight.

All opinions are valid. Not all are learned.

I'm not saying that to belittle, judge, or demean. I'm simply saying that I have a measure of experience that many people don't have, and I think that experience is hard-earned and worth listening to.

I consider myself a pretty good driver. But not to the point where I think I can jump into a Nascar race and do really well. It would be silly to think that way. Just like it's silly to think the ability to finish a 60,000 word novel (which is impressive) automatically means the novel has merit (it may not.)

I'm a professional writer. It's been my only job for almost ten years. But I wouldn't lecture others about writing for television, because I have no experience in doing that. Since Lee does have experience, I'd give his advice extra weight if I decided that was something I wanted to pursue.

And yet he offers his opinion about novels--something he also has experience with--and everyone automatically jumps in to say he's wrong.

I'd say his opinion carries weight and is worth considering. It's certainly more valuable than an echo chamber of like-minded souls without much real-world experience.

I used to agree with Lee, and believe self-publishing was a bad idea. I've since changed my mind, and believe it is a viable, even preferable, alternative to traditional publishing. But I came to that conclusion fairly, based on personal experience. Not based on guesses, or hearsay, or a misunderstanding of how the publishing industry works. I've got an agent. I've sold a bunch of stories and novels. For me to choose going indie is an actual choice, not my only option because I couldn't sell traditionally.

I'm not trying to make this "us vs. them." I'm sharing some hard-earned wisdom that I learned the hard way.

Without trying to speak for Lee, I'm pretty sure he believes being a good writer isn't easy, and requires a learning curve, and that self-publishing makes it too easy for anyone to jump into the ring without fully learning the ropes first.

It's important to learn the ropes. It also takes a lot of time, and a lot of failure. Self-pubbing takes time and failure out of the equation, which results in a majority of sub-par work being available.

If I sound like a condescending jerk, that isn't my intent. But I've walked in all of your shoes. Lee is the only one here who has walked in mine.

Does that mean your book is one of the ones that is crap? Absolutely not.

But if you aren't selling as well as you'd like, it is something to consider. I say that to be helpful, because I'm sure it won't win me any friends or fans on this board. I say it having written nine unpublished novels, and receiving over 500 rejections. I say it having several hundred thousand books in print, a handful of awards and nominations, and being able to make a living as an author.

You might not want to listen, but why wouldn't you?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> *cough* Twilight *cough, cough*
> 
> oh, man...sorry about that. Got something sparkly caught in my throat...


You should ask the girls who work at my office; Twilight is their bible. What's good is subjective. I listen to heavy metal; my gf thinks it's noise. I love Lord of the Rings; she thinks it's that weird movie with the guys with the pointy ears. I think Twilight is one of the worst things that's happened to literature, but that's my opinion; millions of women would disagree.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

And don't get started with the Christians and Dan Brown. Oy. I'm getting verklempt just thinking about that.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> That could also be said, "It's getting a bit experienced authors who wrote millions of words and critiqued millions of words vs new authors who haven't."
> 
> I don't believe dues need to be paid before you become a good writers. But writing a lot, professionally judging stories, working with many editors, and learning craft in an industry that pays you, certainly gives our opinions some weight.


There are those of us who have a lot of such experience on both sides of this debate, though. Both sides have got to be careful about making assumptions about the other.

Camille


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

DArenson said:
 

> You should ask the girls who work at my office; Twilight is their bible. What's good is subjective. I listen to heavy metal; my gf thinks it's noise. I love Lord of the Rings; she thinks it's that weird movie with the guys with the pointy ears. I think Twilight is one of the worst things that's happened to literature, but that's my opinion; millions of women would disagree.


I know, and honestly, I have nothing against Meyer or her books. I just have such a hard time understanding what the big deal about them is.

But then again, I am not the target demographic for TWILIGHT. When one considers who TWILIGHT'S target audience is, even I can't argue it was perfectly placed. the right book at the right time.

I would like to note, however, then even my 15 year old daughter, who devoured each of the TWILIGHT books in under a day each, is now sick of them.

Guess audiences can be fickle.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> And don't get started with the Christians and Dan Brown. Oy. I'm getting verklempt just thinking about that.


I keep waiting for some group of Christians to blast 33 A.D., but it hasn't happened yet. I've had a couple of them refuse to raed it based on the plot, but so far no one who has read it has called for my blood.

Yet.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> And don't get started with the Christians and Dan Brown. Oy. I'm getting verklempt just thinking about that.


I wasn't a big fan of "The Da Vinci Code". Not for any religious reasons; I just found the second half dull.

I disliked "Life of Pi" too. Really couldn't get why it's a bestseller; I barely managed to finish it.

But I guess millions of readers disagree with me....


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

*Hearing the wisps of baaa-ing on the air*


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Oh, and back OT, I agree with you, Joe. There's no real reson not to listen to the advice of people who already make a living doing what many of us _want_ to. At the risk of getting flamed, I think some of the posters in this thread took Lee's generalized comments a little too personally. Just sayin'.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> I know, and honestly, I have nothing against Meyer or her books. I just have such a hard time understanding what the big deal about them is.
> 
> But then again, I am not the target demographic for TWILIGHT. When one considers who TWILIGHT'S target audience is, even I can't argue it was perfectly placed. the right book at the right time.
> 
> ...


I live near a movie theatre. When the Twilight movies come out, the streets are PACKED. There are just crowds everywhere. And it seems like a mix of teen girls and middle aged women. Many women in their 30s-50s seem to love Twilight just as much as the younger girls.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

There's a difference between advice and opinion.  Giving advice based on experience is one thing, people can accept it or not as they decide.  But an opinion is another thing, it is simply stating what one person thinks. And it is purely subjective.  Again, it is up to the reader to decide whether or not to internalize it.  I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we should not make any assumptions about each other.  I look at things strictly from a reader's perspective, and I respect all authors, even the ones whose work I don't like.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Oh, and back OT, I agree with you, Joe. There's no real reson not to listen to the advice of people who already make a living doing what many of us _want_ to. At the risk of getting flamed, I think some of the posters in this thread took Lee's generalized comments a little too personally. Just sayin'.


It's very easy to be offended when someone says you stink.

Just be offended privately. Pros don't respond to criticism.

I've gotten my share of bad reviews. Engaging the reviewer is never a wise move. It reeks of insecurity, and as a writer, you want to ooze confidence.

If your books are good, you never need to defend them. They will speak on your behalf.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

I've been making a good living as an Independent Software Vendor for most of my adult life. When I took the Indie route, the same sort of brouhaha erupted between the large software companies and ISVs. Upstart, wannabe developers were selling low priced competitive products and (unheard of at the time) giving prospective customers free try-before-you-buy versions. The establishment insisted that all the crappy, unprofessional software would be the death of the industry and the home computer.

Fast forward twenty years.

Everyone has a computer. Software is cheaper. Most applications have a free try-before-you-buy version. Consumers have a wider choice of products, albeit some of it is crap. Microsoft, Apple, Google and Amazon are openly soliciting ISV produced products.

This too will pass.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Sort of like when you not engage trolls on Amazon's threads.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm not offended by what Lee said, I've just read some great indie books and my opinion differs from his.  And to me, there's a difference between "not quite there yet" and "total garbage".  I've read some great indie books that could use some tightening up, IMHO.  But I wouldn't say they're worthless pieces of garbage.

But a gourmet cook might think eating at McDonald's is like eating trash.

I'll be pretty happy if I sell half as many books as McDonald's sells hamburgers.  

Vicki


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> I keep waiting for some group of Christians to blast 33 A.D., but it hasn't happened yet. I've had a couple of them refuse to raed it based on the plot, but so far no one who has read it has called for my blood.
> 
> Yet.


Somebody somewhere is always going to get offended by whatever you write. BTW, I'm very religious and I didn't find anything offensive in the part I read. It's in my TBR pile, so I'll let you know... but from what others have said I don't think I'll find it offensive. 

Vicki


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> I challenge you to both read my book. If you both thinks its crap I'll delete it from the web...the flip side is if you like it you have to promote it on your websites


I just grabbed a copy; I'll let you know if it's utter crap.


----------



## JulieDolce (Apr 18, 2010)

I have to agree with Lee, and unfortunately the fact that anyone can publish anything affects all of us. I, too, have read some pretty horrendous stuff, but that's not to say that there isn't some terrific reads out there. People self-publish because the industry is going through a fickle phase. Fair? No. I struggled to get my book published for three or four years, and I am represented by an agent. I finally went with a very small press who cannot promote me in the way I need, so I have to do it myself. Because my book wasn't published by St. Martins Press, I'm not in B&N or Borders, or in the top 100 on Amazon. I will get there one day because the book is that good. But it isn't easy. In this case, some bad apples do spoil the whole bunch. Lee isn't wrong, and he didn't say 'all'. But I agree there are many. I've read them myself.

Best,
Julie Dolcemaschio
Author, Testarossa


----------



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

daringnovelist said:


> I would also like to point out that MOST professionally published writers (that is, those who have published with a real publisher) do NOT make a living at it. I don't personally know any traditionally published writers who don't also work at least one day job.
> 
> Camille


I live on a small island 3x12 miles and I either know personally or know of at least ten authors who live of their writing, and live well.
Ann


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2010)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> I live on a small island 3x12 miles and I either know personally or know of at least ten authors who live of their writing, and live well.
> Ann


Sounds like you are rubbing elbows in a pretty posh neighborhood. Did they inspire you to start writing? Must be a stimulating environment, Ann.


----------



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

It is a pretty posh neighborhood. Doesn't mean I'm posh just picked it for my animals when I had 15 cats and 8 dogs. Now have one dog and two cats. We have a pretty good writer's group that brings people in from afar, and we have a writer's conference about 15 mins from my house. I only participate sometimes, their taste is at times a bit too literary for me. I was writing before I lived here. It is just coincidence. 
Ann


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2010)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> It is a pretty posh neighborhood. Doesn't mean I'm posh just picked it for my animals when I had 15 cats and 8 dogs. Now have one dog and two cats. We have a pretty good writer's group that brings people in from afar, and we have a writer's conference about 15 mins from my house. I only participate sometimes, their taste is at times a bit too literary for me. I was writing before I lived here. It is just coincidence.
> Ann


GOOD LORD, ANN! Now I can see why you write about animal rights...you obviously had some kind of horrific pet massacre in your home. What happened to all of those animals? For the love of all that is holy!


----------



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

They were all rescued animals who died of old age or were euthanized because they had some incurable illness.  They died in a good way if any way is a good way to die.  One of my two cats that I have now one has an incurable cancer, but we will keep him alive until we think he is no longer enjoying life. My vet comes to my home which is pretty cool.
Ann.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> That could also be said, "It's getting a bit experienced authors who wrote millions of words and critiqued millions of words vs new authors who haven't."
> 
> Does that mean your book is one of the ones that is crap? Absolutely not.
> 
> ...


actually buddy, I pretty much agree with you and Lee...that post was facetiousness of the highest order


----------



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

Let's face it: Lee is right. The precise way in which he worded it may have left a little something to be desired, but he has a very valid point.

10 or so years ago, after completing my first novel, I attended a writer's conference, met with an editor for Tor books and pitched my novel to her. I knew I had written a good story and she agreed enough to ask me to send it along. I have (and had) enough experience in other forums to know that I write a decent story. The novel came back, rejected. It was and, I still believe, is a good story. I had written the story to the very best of my ability, checked and rechecked it. But it came back. I wondered why.

Some months later, after digesting what I'd learned at the writer's conference and from books on the subject of writing, I reread my novel and realized that though I'd written to the best of my ability, my writing ability (at that time) lacked. The story itself, plot and characters, still resonated with me. But technically I had become a better writer and I now fully understood why that novel came back. I agree completely with the rejection. I am happy that that iteration of my novel is not 'out there'. However, I fully intend publishing it on Kindle -- after a re-write.

Had Kindle been available to me on the day I received my rejection, I might very well have published. It is so (relatively) easy. And there are many authors out there, just as I was, who now have the chance to just hit that 'publish' button. It is so easy. The traditional gate-keepers (if you wish to use that term) prevented my novel from hitting the market. They couldn't stop me, or anyone else, today. We are going to get a lot of dreck, dreck which could be avoided through the traditional publishing route. Waiting until authors attain a certain level before 'allowing' them to publish.

However, Lee is also wrong. Every book, no matter how trashy he thinks it is, no matter how illiterate he believes the writing to be, has an audience. It may never find that audience. That audience may not, as a general rule, even read much. While working in the Arctic, I had the dubious pleasure of reading a lot of books outside my chosen genres. I read some true (published) dreck. So, the question is: Who makes the decision that I am ready (or not) for 'prime time'. With Kindle, it is the audience.

Audiences are peculiar beasts. Take Joe Konrath, for example ('cause he posts here and he uses Kindle successfully). I'm here because of Joe. Someone on another site mentioned his blog, I went and looked, decided that I'd like to follow up and here I am. All honour to him. I downloaded a sample of one of Joe's books. I read it through. It did not 'speak' to me. I am not his audience. Would I have him write differently to please me? Hell no! I think it is great that he's doing so well and hope he continues to do so. He has his audience and I have mine -- much smaller but, hopefully, growing.

In traditional publishing the 'gate-keepers' get to choose who the audience will be. Who will be serviced and how. Kindle/self-publishing allows the audience to find their own performers, not just choose from the performers on a list made up by others.

Lee's 'follow the traditional route' _will_ prevent a lot of dreck from hitting the bookshelves. It will also prevent good, but not commercially viable, books from doing the same. Traditional publishing also produces works by name authors who have lost the fire. I love Alistair McLean's early books. Some of his later ones I could barely finish and eventually I ignored his new offerings altogether, leaving them unread. But he took up a space that other talented writers might have used. J.K. Rowling's name ensurers that her next book will be a best-seller. That same book, if presented by an unknown, might never get published.

Traditional publishing often demands a second and third book as part of the contract. They aren't buying a book, they're buying a brand--hopefully one which will pay dividends. The time constraints on the follow-up books often force an author to write faster than his (or her) comfort level and result in a disappointing second effort and thus end the writer's career.

Traditional Publishing does have a lot going for it, and Lee enumerates its good points well. It also has a lot of faults. Kindle addresses some of those. Kindle, also, isn't perfect. It's relatively new and there are definitely going to be growing pains. Change has come and not everyone will be comfortable with it. Right now we are all scrambling trying to find a comfort zone. We have fears of the unknown: Will a large amount of dreck hurt indie authors as a whole? Will traditionally published authors and that system be damaged by indie authors? and so on.

Lee presents one side of the equation and I find I agree with what he says, if not how he said it. On the other hand, I also disagree with him. In any event, he has taken a lot of flack that I don't think he deserves. If we all jump on each other that hard whenever one of us makes a mistake, this will become an uncomfortable place to hang out.


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

A flippant remark I made about me being better looking than Lee Goldberg has led me to post a photo for others to judge if I am right or wrong.  I will also be putting my first book on Kindle, after three years of effort in a few weeks. When I do I am going to invite Mr. Goldberg to peruse it, and give me an honest opinion if it falls outside of his "99.9% junk," or, more likely smack dab in the middle of his stat.

Dave


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Sorry, Dave. Sibel Hodge is much better looking.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Jeff said:


> Sorry, Dave. Sibel Hodge is much better looking.


I haven't the foggiest who Sibel Hodge is. Dave, on the other hand, is one fine looking gentleman. I haven't seen Lee, but Dave has GOT to be better looking.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

scarlet said:


> There's a difference between advice and opinion. Giving advice based on experience is one thing, people can accept it or not as they decide. But an opinion is another thing, it is simply stating what one person thinks. And it is purely subjective. Again, it is up to the reader to decide whether or not to internalize it. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we should not make any assumptions about each other. I look at things strictly from a reader's perspective, and I respect all authors, even the ones whose work I don't like.


Scarlet RULES.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

MariaESchneider said:


> I haven't the foggiest who Sibel Hodge is. Dave, on the other hand, is one fine looking gentleman. I haven't seen Lee, but Dave has GOT to be better looking.


Look up. Sibel Hodge posted just before Dave.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Now it's become a who's better looking contest.... What shall be the contest when this gets to page 9, I wonder??


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

John Fitch V said:


> Now it's become a who's better looking contest.... What shall be the contest when this gets to page 9, I wonder??


Who can make the most trivial, off-topic statement would be my vote.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Come onnnn page 9.


----------



## anaconda (Jul 16, 2010)

You are sooooo right.  Sibel Hodge is a fox!  I came on this forum to learn and have fun, but now I am in love.  I am going to buy both her books.

Dave


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Lee's 'follow the traditional route' _will_ prevent a lot of dreck from hitting the bookshelves. It will also prevent good, but not commercially viable, books from doing the same.


Unfortunately, the dreck writers are least likely to listen. I doubt any dreck will be prevented from hitting the bookshelves.

I hope, though, that the good stuff will only be slowed. Lee's advice is more a "slow down" move anyway. Odds are that the good, but not commercially viable books will get at least a little validation along the way.

Camille


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

daringnovelist said:


> Unfortunately, the dreck writers are least likely to listen. I doubt any dreck will be prevented from hitting the bookshelves.


I hope you're right. I really enjoy watching the dreck rise to the top.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

I'd be good looking if the glare from my forehead would quit blinding people.


----------



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

Maybe coming to Kindleboards and being an active member is a selection process in itself. I have been reading KB author books and haven't found anything awful yet. I have found books that would not make it through the traditional filters. Gay characters, non-traditional choice of formatting, main characters who would be villains in other books, and some other things would make the slush pile reader put the book down. That doesn't make them bad, they just don't fit into the very narrow requirements of the big business that is traditional publishing. They also don't qualify because they aren't written by celebrities and aren't clones of the last New York Times Bestseller.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> I'd be good looking if the glare from my forehead would quit blinding people.


Who said that? All I saw was a flash of light.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Who said that? All I saw was a flash of light.


Exactly.

I plan to use that skill to my advantage at the next convention I attend. I will blind people who attempt to leave my table without a copy of my book in hand. (insert evil laugh here)


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Shaving and Biccing immediately. 

But David, wouldn't it be a huge stop sign right now... you know, because of the burn?


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

(snicker!)


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I just stopped by to say I proudly represent the 99.9%, and I take no offense to being grouped with them.  And I truly wish that it only took one click to publish, because the multiple pages I had to wade through on Smashwords were so taxing, I had to take a nap afterwards.  Incorrect formatting?  Wha?

And although I did graduate high school, it was just a Catholic high school, and even then I had to allow Reverend McNally, the head principal, to touch me in an inappropriate way so that he would pass me.

Our motto:  "Ninety-nine point nine percent: Because we just don't allow everyone in."


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

John Fitch V said:


> Shaving and Biccing immediately.
> 
> But David, wouldn't it be a huge stop sign right now... you know, because of the burn?


Healed and Peeled, John, leaving an even whiter dome.

Heh heh. So much the better.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Aloe is your friend.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Ahh. Page 9 at last.


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

Took us a while, but we got here.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

swolf said:


> Our motto: "Ninety-nine point nine percent: Because we just don't allow everyone in."


Oh my God. That took me by surprise. I'm still giggling...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Now let's see how long we can go without insulting anyone. (Excluding those of us who lack hair on our heads - we're always fair game.)


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

I bet we don't get out of page nine.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Let's face it: Lee is right. The precise way in which he worded it may have left a little something to be desired, but he has a very valid point.
> Edited for length, but excellent post--Mary Mcdonald
> 
> Lee presents one side of the equation and I find I agree with what he says, if not how he said it. On the other hand, I also disagree with him. In any event, he has taken a lot of flack that I don't think he deserves. If we all jump on each other that hard whenever one of us makes a mistake, this will become an uncomfortable place to hang out.


I agree with everything you said. I started this thread as knee jerk reaction to Goldberg's comments. I still think he painted the vast majority of indie authors with the same brush, but it's possible he sampled the hundreds of indie books and they were as terrible as he says, or he's exaggerating for effect. It doesn't really matter. It's over. He has his opinion, and I have mine.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Oh, and back OT, I agree with you, Joe. There's no real reson not to listen to the advice of people who already make a living doing what many of us _want_ to. At the risk of getting flamed, I think some of the posters in this thread took Lee's generalized comments a little too personally. Just sayin'.


Well, the original poster has experience as a writer in the traditionally published industry and certainly a right to his opinion.

*make a living doing what many of us _want_ to.*

I agree with this only to a point. Do I want people to read and enjoy my novels? Yes. But, I don't want to be a part of the traditionally published industry at all. I think that's one of the things I find most annoying about this "I'm a traditionally published author" mentality, that somehow we indies are all longing for acceptance by the "industry". It's just not true for me. I write and rewrite my novels. A professional editor goes through my books before I release them, and a pretty good artist does my covers. But, I believe I'm probably one of those writers that Lee mentioned with what seemed to be _disdain_ earlier that I just do this as a hobby... apparently that's not okay either. My stance about not caring is most likely going to be viewed as an example of some bitter individual who tried and tried again at getting traditionally published and received so many rejection slips that now I hate the industry and I just decided to self-publish because I'm not good enough. This btw. is not true. I didn't bother with queries.

It kind of reads like- if we don't follow the traditional rules of publishing we are in the wrong, no matter what. I'm not going to have a "discussion/confrontation/argument" either. Just going to state my opinion and move on.

Dawn

ps. David- this is really not aimed at you. It's aimed at Lee and Joe, and traditional publishing.

edit: Hmm... I don't care = dreck? Or, it could mean you're above all this nonsense? Just a thought.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> It's very easy to be offended when someone says you stink.
> 
> Just be offended privately. Pros don't respond to criticism.
> 
> ...


Pros don't respond to criticism? Wow, that's interesting, since most people I know in all fields respond to criticism. It's HOW we respond that matters. And how we chose to read what is written in print or on-line. It's all subjective, all about US.

Someone said (and perhaps jokingly) that all people who post "helpful" posts are actually crowing about being successful. Well, I'm sure some people are crowing, but as an eternal optimistic, I'm going to go on believing that people really are trying to be helpful.

And again, I'm coming at this from a reader's POV, not a writer's. And I've read thousands of books over the course of a busy life, and sometimes I wonder how they got published. That's why I like indie publishing. It means more people can get their work seen.

And I'm willing to bet, that for every book that one or more of us has considered crap, there is SOMEONE who enjoyed it. Because we're all different that way. And that's what makes the world interesting.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Wow, this thread is still going on? I am sure everything in here has been repeated at least five times at this point... and what's with the hair-splitting going on and on?  Maybe I should start talking about that 99 cent price point for a little while and how I feel it destroys the industry?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't know, I think this has been a very useful thread.  Sure, we seem to be padding it to get to ten pages. (Do we get cupcakes when that happens?)

Everything is changing very quickly.  We're all trying to choose the right path for ourselves.  We each have a piece of the puzzle, and a discussion like this helps us to get a larger view.

Camille


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Yeah, so I find myself a small press author who has had a glimpse at Real Publishing, with at least 500 rejections from the Traditionals, editors and agents ... after twenty years. Money trickles in from the small presses, and might become more with greater name recognition. Or not.

Now I'm poised to join the 99.9% with at least two of my works. 

One hasn't seen any kind of publishing but came close with the Traditionals. The other is an e-book version of trade paper since that publisher doesn't do e-books. 

I'm not really seeing the downside of self-pubbing them.


----------



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

scarlet said:


> Someone said (and perhaps jokingly) that all people who post "helpful" posts are actually crowing about being successful. Well, I'm sure some people are crowing, but as an eternal optimistic, I'm going to go on believing that people really are trying to be helpful.


I noticed that statement at the time too. I'm actually pretty cynical about a lot of things, but I've been on many email lists for other subjects over the years. And there are people on all of those forums who will go out of their way to help perfect strangers. I've been helped with dog orthopedic problems, cat kidney problems, and auto choices, among other things. As to books, when I was ready to put my first one out, I joined the Create Space forums and DTP forums, and there are people there who will answer questions and help newbies, and they never mention their own efforts when doing it. So I'm with you - some people may be crowing about their success, but by and large I think a whole lot of people who try to help others on forums are either just helpful type people or people who are trying to give others what they got themselves when they started.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Someone said (and perhaps jokingly) that all people who post "helpful" posts are actually crowing about being successful. Well, I'm sure some people are crowing, but as an eternal optimistic, I'm going to go on believing that people really are trying to be helpful.


I'm with you, I never take someone's helpful post as crowing. It never even occurred to me. 

Vicki


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

ellenoc said:


> ...I think a whole lot of people who try to help others on forums are either just helpful type people or people who are trying to give others what they got themselves when they started.


It's hard not to become cynical in today's busy, competitive world but the reality is that nice people still exist in abundance. This forum has hundreds of them.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Jeff said:


> It's hard not to become cynical in today's busy, competitive world but the reality is that nice people still exist in abundance. This forum has hundreds of them.


Hear, Hear!


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Crowing about success would infer actually caring about what people think.

Writers should care about what people think. A handful of people that include close friends and family.

But peers? Fans?

You should never care what your peers think of you, or your fans. It's good to have peers who like you, and fans who like you, but if you start taking their praise or criticism seriously, you'll drive yourself nuts. If you start requiring their approval for your happiness, you'll wind up very hurt and confused.

You can't ever compare yourself to any other writer. It's a no win situation.

Believing reviews, good or bad, is harmful. Always.

Get a small circle of people whom you trust, and let them be your support group. Everyone else is just background noise.

I think this is a good group of people here. I like being able to show what I'm doing, because I'm pretty sure it inspires some folks, and I think that's a good thing. 

At the same time, I don't think I've needed anyone's approval but my wife's in over ten years. That's really the only healthy way to succeed in this biz.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Writers should care about what people think. A handful of people that include close friends and family.


When I mentioned in my post that "I don't care" I guess I should clarify. I care about readers, and the typos in my novels. I don't care what the traditional publishing industry thinks of me.

Dawn


----------



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

Jack Kilborn said:


> You should never care what your peers think of you, or your fans.


Oh that is soooo going to get misquoted somewhere. 

David Dalglish


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Crowing about success would infer actually caring about what people think.
> 
> Writers should care about what people think. A handful of people that include close friends and family.
> 
> ...


Wow, I would think that you would care a bit what your peers think, at least in terms of feedback for stuff you might have overlooked. And as for your fans, if you tell them you don't care what they think, you might lose some fans.

Again, it's probably a good idea to avoid generalizations, and to quote a Styx song, "Never, never, never say never."


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Wow, I would think that you would care a bit what your peers think, at least in terms of feedback for stuff you might have overlooked. And as for your fans, if you tell them you don't care what they think, you might lose some fans.
> 
> Again, it's probably a good idea to avoid generalizations, and to quote a Styx song, "Never, never, never say never."


Well, he did say to pay attention to your close friends and support group. I think he was talking about your public peers.

And when he said "fans" he made it very clear he didn't mean "audience." He meant the people who praise you. You have to be careful about chasing that praise. I know writers who got so wrapped up in the praise that a few people heaped on them, that they stared writing just for those few people, and ended up not writing what they wanted. (It's actually pretty common in crit groups.)

Camille


----------



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

scarlet said:


> Wow, I would think that you would care a bit what your peers think, at least in terms of feedback for stuff you might have overlooked. And as for your fans, if you tell them you don't care what they think, you might lose some fans.
> 
> Again, it's probably a good idea to avoid generalizations, and to quote a Styx song, "Never, never, never say never."


Don't misquote him. He didn't say he didn't care what fans think, he said he didn't care what fans think *of him*.

I think Joe is basically saying that you have to be true to yourself, believe in yourself and that only those who know you well have the authority to criticize. Happiness comes from within and if you rely on outside agencies for happiness, then outside agencies will gain the power to create despair in you as well.

I agree with him, wholeheartedly. I also agree with David:


Half-Orc said:


> Oh that is soooo going to get misquoted somewhere.
> 
> David Dalglish


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I didn't misquote him, since I quoted the whole post.  I may have misread his intention, which as I've been saying is something that happens when you're reading something online.  The only person who can tell me what Joe meant is Joe. 

As I said, generalizations can be dangerous.

It's been my experience that most people do care what other people think, and what other people think of them.  It's part of being human.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

scarlet said:


> It's been my experience that most people do care what other people think, and what other people think of them. It's part of being human.


But it's also a mistake, IMHO. I've always felt a part of growing up is learning to care about people, not about what they think of you.

And I think that's exactly what Joe was exhibiting here. When we care about each other, we help each other to learn not to care what others think. We learn to value ourselves and our own opinions. (And ironically, when you care about what others think of you, you're not caring about THEM - you're worried about yourself. When you don't care what others think about you, you are then free to stop worrying about yourself and care about them.)

Camille


----------



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

D.A. Boulter said:


> Don't misquote him. He didn't say he didn't care what fans think, he said he didn't care what fans think *of him*.
> 
> I think Joe is basically saying that you have to be true to yourself, believe in yourself and that only those who know you well have the authority to criticize. Happiness comes from within and if you rely on outside agencies for happiness, then outside agencies will gain the power to create despair in you as well.
> 
> I agree with him, wholeheartedly. I also agree with David:


I really think it is important to stay true to what you think unless you find a very good reason to change your opinion. I agree you have to be true to yourself--even if family members don't agree. My family members don't agree with me they have to agree to differ.

Ann


----------



## amanda_hocking (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi. I'm not sure I'm adding much at this point, but I did take the time to read the entire post and I saw my name mentioned, and I wanted to say a few things.

I still don't understand this us vs. them thing going with indie and traditionally published. You know why I published the way I did? Because I wanted to write, to be read, to make money. And to do that, I wasn't willing to cross out any avenue, including indie. 

So I tried indie with a vampire book I knew would never get picked up traditionally because there's just too many damned vampire books. Nobody wanted it. So I said, "This won't get published trad. Let's see what happens on this Kindle thing." And I did.

My first book went up April 15th I believe. On the first title, I've sold around 3500 copies alone. I have three titles in one series, and one book in a series that I just released. Between those four titles, I've sold almost 10,000 books. By the end of the month, I'll have sold over 10k. The first three books hover between #100-500 in sales rank, and the newest book is hanging out around #1000. 

This month, I will make 7 times what I gross at my day job working full-time. In August, I'm going on-call to focus more on writing. If this thing flops completely, I can go back to full-time any time I want, so I feel secure in this decision. I also have insurance and things sorted out, but that's probably more info than you really care about.

If I were to ever get that magical offer from a Big 6, I would probably take it. (Can't say for sure - haven't seen the deal.) They promise more exposure, more money, and most importantly, more editing. 

I think Lee's statements were exaggerated, but I don't think he's necessarily wrong. We've all read bad things, some that are barely literate, but we've also read some very, very good indie published work. So we know where he's coming from, at this on some level.

But I'm not at all worried about how Lee's opinions on indie published will affect my sales because I think that's missing the point. While I do garner a lot of readers from places like Kindleboards who actively seek out indies (thanks guys!), the average browser on Amazon has no idea who published what book. They look at cover, description, price, and probably a sample. If you hit the mark with all four of those, you get a sale, and they don't give a crap who published the thing.

Word-of-mouth is still a big seller. I find review sites to review my books, and I've yet to find one that won't review it because it's indie. 

But the average reader doesn't care. There has been a lot of good advice here on both sides, but I think we're all making the incorrect assumption that readers are as obsessed with this indie vs. traditional war as we are. They don't care. They just want a good book. And if you write a good book, they'll come back and ask for another good book. That's how it works. 

We need to stop thinking of each other as enemies. I've never lost a sale to Stephanie Meyer, and she's never lost a sale to me. We're not hurting each other. Honest. Whether I make a million dollars or totally bomb, it's not affecting anyone else. Only me. 

But that's just my opinion, and I have been wrong before.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> We need to stop thinking of each other as enemies. I've never lost a sale to Stephanie Meyer, and she's never lost a sale to me. We're not hurting each other. Honest. Whether I make a million dollars or totally bomb, it's not affecting anyone else. Only me.
> 
> But that's just my opinion, and I have been wrong before.


Great post!

(And it puts us onto page ten! Amanda gets the cupcakes!)

Camille


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> I still don't understand this us vs. them thing going with indie and traditionally published. You know why I published the way I did? Because I wanted to write, to be read, to make money. And to do that, I wasn't willing to cross out any avenue, including indie.


Great post, Amanda. I'm so glad you're doing so well as an indie author. That's so awesome, and inspirational for all of us. 

Vicki


----------



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

Amanda doesn't need the cupcakes. She is making soooo much money! Great job and to be able to leave work.
Ann


----------



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

With those sales, Amanda, I'm thinking hiring an editor shouldn't be a problem for you much longer  

David Dalglish


----------



## John Hamilton (May 6, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> But the average reader doesn't care. There has been a lot of good advice here on both sides, but I think we're all making the incorrect assumption that readers are as obsessed with this indie vs. traditional war as we are. They don't care. They just want a good book. And if you write a good book, they'll come back and ask for another good book. That's how it works.


Thanks for taking the time to write that well-thought-out post, Amanda. I'm really happy for your success. You're an inspiration.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

amanda_hocking said:


> So I tried indie with a vampire book I knew would never get picked up traditionally because there's just too many damned vampire books. Nobody wanted it.


I bet those editors who rejected your novel are regretting their decision now. I'm very happy for you, Amanda!


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

DArenson said:


> I bet those editors who rejected your novel are regretting their decision now. I'm very happy for you, Amanda!


And now Amanda can laugh about that scathing review -- no, personal attack -- that she posted about a few weeks ago...


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Amanda, congratulations!

Found some more input on the whole debate--a new book on the "globally free publishing" phenom called HERE COMES EVERYBODY. A blog post: http://blog.writersdigest.com/norules/2010/07/19/PublishingIsTheNewLiteracy3ThingsWritersMustKnow.aspx

Christina


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

It's great to read of the experiences and sucesses of those who came before. Hat's off to all for sharing.


----------

