# Anyone else disturbed at the rate indie authors churn out books?



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.

But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.

When James Patterson releases a new book every quarter, people decry the drop in quality from churning out mass-produced drivel. This with the help of his ghost writers, editors, and publisher. 

I've always thought it took time to write, edit, and polish a novel as best as it could be.

Wouldn't the same argument apply to indie books, where less people (and possibly time) are involved in polishing the work?

I'd like to hear your opinions. Better yet, give me an example of an indie author that could disprove my assumption


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

We have a lot of members here who are independent authors. . . . .seems to me they write at different rates.  I have noticed that if I purchase a couple of indie books -- which are usually in the $2 to $5 price range, I get recommended even more in that range.  'Sokay with me.

I also think that many 'indie' authors are authors who have a backlist that is no longer published.  It may seem like they're 'cranking them out' but it could just be that they are re-proofing/editing their backlist and publishing them.  That won't take as long as writing a new book.

And. .. as a reminder. . . . this thread is in the Book Corner -- or will be as soon as I move it there from LTK  -- so authors should NOT use their own books as examples.  Please discuss the topic in general terms only.  Thanks.


----------



## lalapurple (Jan 11, 2011)

I guess we dont know how many books that indi authors have actually written before they start publishing. What you see as 8 books in 1 or 2 years work could be 10 or 20 years work. Its a bit like the actor who makes it big on their first film, what you dont get told is that have worked as extras on low budget productions finally working their way up to b grade before making it to the big time. Maybe the big successful millionaire writers only write because they want to now, and they are not trying to feed a family, pay the bill and put kids thru school, oh to have that luxury.
To all the indi authors out there, please dont stop, i love reading you and hope that one day i can say ' oh him/her i have been readin gtheir books for years"!
Thank you for hours of enjoyment
Jen


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

*@Ann*, thanks for moving the thread 

Yes I thought about the backlist, and it's easy to see if an 'indie' has been published before. I don't factor backlist titles by previously published authors in my argument.

I guess some indie authors do have several works in the back closet, but from my observations some of them are only writing now. Some mention when Book #1 is being published that they're nearly finished writing Book #2 and will release Book #2 in 2 months or so.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

I've read posts by traditionally published authors who are unhappy that their publishers keep them from writing more than one book every 12 to 18 months. The public is used to that so I can see why you find it implausible that indie authors can put out a lot of books in a relatively short period of time and have any kind of quality.

Yes, it can be a problem if the author doesn't even spell check, which, sadly, does happen. Or spell checks and thinks that's enough, which, sadly, also does happen. However, I know of several authors that put out books pretty quickly and are very high quality. 

Am I allowed to give some examples here? 

BTW, James Patterson has said he's going back to writing his books himself.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2011)

I think there are a lot of factors to take into account here. As lalapurple noted, there are those of us who have been writing for years before we even heard about indie publishing. Also, the length of the book makes a difference in how long it takes to produce. Especially for YA, most of these aren't 500 page monsters. 

As always, quality varies, and each author must prove him or herself to each reader.


----------



## Ann Chambers (Apr 24, 2011)

It does seem that a good number of indies have several unpublished works or books that the rights have reverted to them, so they only have to get them formatted and have covers created, which makes for a rapid publishing timeline. 

Also, a good number of the indie authors have works of varying lengths - short stories, novelettes, novellas, and full-fledged novels out there.

(I also think there are plenty who are rushing work to market when it's not really polished. But here at KB, I see lots of writer's who are taking a very professional approach to self publishing and who value editors and designers. As a former editor and voracious reader, I appreciate that.)


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Some are backlist with rights reverted--and many of us have been writing for years.  It takes me between two and three years to write, edit, get beta readers, implement feedback, do artwork, and so on.

Really the best way to test any author is the sample.  Of course, I know from my own reading experience it doesn't always work.  It helps, but it doesn't always work...

I am amazed at authors who are able to churn out a book in 6 months, but if I recall correctly J.D. Robb said in an interview that it takes her about that long per book.  And she is one of the few who convinced her publisher to allow her to put out books at a rate of more than one per year (she writes under more than one name and I think keeps about 3 series going at the same time--or did for a while there.)


----------



## jmanasu (Aug 4, 2011)

I believe that publishing houses pull the wool over our eyes a little. When a book is "finished", it's a year or longer before it reaches the shelves in most cases. Does it really take that much polish to go from what the writer did to when it finally comes out? I don't know. Maybe it's like someone who orders take out and then pretends like they spent the day slaving over the hot stove.

Just my 1 1/2 cents.


----------



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

Indie writers though can write a book faster than a traditional author since he controls everything himself.  The publisher actually slows down the traditional author but the Indie writer can speed the process up as much as he wishes.

I truly believe that more and more of the traditional authors will switch over to become Indie authors and speed up their publishing so they can put more books out.


----------



## ebookeditingpro (Jul 22, 2011)

I truly understand your concern--that indie authors are somehow watering down the publishing industry. I've found that not to be true at all. In fact, most indie authors are quite talented and have come up with original concepts that were not deemed commercially viable. Having said that, I have run across some books that should not have been put before the reading public. 

I think two things are happening. People have a huge cache of never-published books and are putting them out now. I have a 75-year-old client who has ten books that just need an edit before she publishes them. Also, many ebooks may be shorter than traditionally published books. Publishers, especially for genre fiction, have very specific guidelines on book length, and if you've written a shorter book, it will not be considered for publication. 

Though this might seem self-serving, it's really not: I do wish every indie author would have their books edited. Books that are riddled with inconsistencies, incorrect word usage, and grammar mistakes do water down the industry. An author who maintains quality while churning out books is a superstar. An author who churns out a product that is unreadable does hurt the overall indie author movement.


----------



## jmanasu (Aug 4, 2011)

I think publishers have conditioned us to think it takes so long before a book is deemed ready. One of my favorite authors, Dean Koontz once said he writes 10 hours a day, everyday. I can guarantee he produces more than 1 book a year but on average, that is what he releases. 

I agree with Franklin Eddy. I think as time passes, what was originally thought of as the norm for how long a book takes to be published will change.


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

jmanasu said:


> When a book is "finished", it's a year or longer before it reaches the shelves in most cases. Does it really take that much polish to go from what the writer did to when it finally comes out?


I'm pretty sure that traditional publishing bureaucracy add to the delay, but I know from talking to published authors that much of that time is also spent in the editing process. Not just correcting grammatical mistakes, but in making revisions to the story itself to make it the best it could be. When the process ends, the novel could be very different from what it originally was.

Other people might see this as stifling of the authors' creative freedom. And yet many published authors are thankful to their editors for helping them make their novel tighter, better, more salable.

I guess I'm in the camp that thinks writing a first draft could be quick, but the nitty gritty editing takes time.

And yes, the poor editing in many indie titles is scaring me away. I'm not even that concerned about grammatical errors-- those are easy to catch. I'm more concerned about poor plotting, pacing, awkward dialogue, and just plain horrible writing. Not that they don't exist in traditionally published books, but the rate of occurrence in indie books is much higher.

Indies are still a viable option for me, though. I've discovered one indie I like. That's what freebies and Kindle samples are for


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> I'm pretty sure that traditional publishing bureaucracy add to the delay, but I know from talking to published authors that much of that time is also spent in the editing process. Not just correcting grammatical mistakes, but in making revisions to the story itself to make it the best it could be. When the process ends, the novel could be very different from what it originally was.
> 
> Other people might see this as stifling of the authors' creative freedom. And yet many published authors are thankful to their editors for helping them make their novel tighter, better, more salable.


Unfortunately, this is no longer nearly as true as it once was. Like with lots of business procedures in a number of fields, editing is getting squeezed as publishing houses cut back on editors and proofreaders. Things are different for each author, and some do enjoy several rounds of revision with dedicated editors, but I've also heard of authors being told that their book will only get the first half edited once and then they are on their own.

There was a recent NYTimes article about these cutbacks and how the copyediting stage is getting squeezed, leaving traditionally published books with plenty more errors. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-price-of-typos/?hp

I'll also add that I can't remember the last time I read a traditionally published book that didn't have a typo or an error in it.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

I think a lot is depending on factors such as obviously size (I think 1k/day is something a lot of writers seem to hit), personal time available for writing (some are writing full time, others are just part time) and of course when you get to the end, how lagged is the process from the raw manuscript to the released product - in trad publishing there's probably a moderate lag time between the phases of editing/proofing/etc.

Paul.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

It is enormously difficult to produce a decent novel, then have it properly edited and reasonably well proofed. Even then, errors always sneak through. Most mid-list authors need three to six months to write a good book, some anywhere from six months to a year or more. Now, a lot of us got into ebooks with an existing catalogue, in my case going back to 2001, so that may account for some of what you're seeing. Having said that, IMHO a lot of people are cranking out books in the hopes of getting rich. Quality is bound to suffer for myriad reasons. Sample! Sample!


----------



## ebookeditingpro (Jul 22, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> And yes, the poor editing in many indie titles is scaring me away. I'm not even that concerned about grammatical errors-- those are easy to catch. I'm more concerned about poor plotting, pacing, awkward dialogue, and just plain horrible writing. Not that they don't exist in traditionally published books, but the rate of occurrence in indie books is much higher.


You must have read far more indie books than I have to find such poor writing in so many indie books. I must say I have not seen this at all. However---the vast majority of indie books I read are submitted by writers who are paying to have their books edited and so may be at a different level than people who do not. I do know readers have complained about poor writing and the need for editing. But based on my own experience, most of the books I see need a polishing job, not an overhaul.

However, I love that you have brought this conversation up because I think too many indie authors want to pretend this problem does not exist.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I don't care how many books a writer churns out in a year, or if they're new or backlist. If they're good, that's all I need.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

jmanasu said:


> When a book is "finished", it's a year or longer before it reaches the shelves in most cases. Does it really take that much polish to go from what the writer did to when it finally comes out?


Part of the delay between being finished and hitting the shelves in traditional publishing is that there isn't an infinite supply of printing houses, and they are sometimes scheduled up for a year or more. any given publisher may have a certain percentage of the printer's time/output to work with, and has to decide what books go where in the queue. The ones that might be hot sellers get jumped up in the queue and the rest get put in there somewhere. So if a book isn't projected to be a major release, it might not hit the front of the queue for a year or more.

Ebooks eliminate the printing wait, but of course, I doubt any publisher is going to release an ebook a year ahead of the printed one. Yet.

Mike


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

I was surprised at first by the exact same thing. What I have noticed is that a lot of Kindle books are probably a little slimmer when it comes to word count, but that there is also a much greater incentive (and less resistance) to getting titles out quickly.

The Australian fantasy author Sara Douglass once said that she didn't understand why some authors spent all year agonising over a book when she could turn the whole thing around in a couple of months and then get back to doing what she liked.

I think one of the most relevant points is that there would be a huge range out there in work times for various writers. Some could turn around a novel in a few months, while some will always need a few years.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

jmanasu said:


> I believe that publishing houses pull the wool over our eyes a little. When a book is "finished", it's a year or longer before it reaches the shelves in most cases. Does it really take that much polish to go from what the writer did to when it finally comes out? I don't know. Maybe it's like someone who orders take out and then pretends like they spent the day slaving over the hot stove.
> 
> Just my 1 1/2 cents.


It isn't the polishing. It's the budget and the fact that editors are working multiple projects. It can take an editor two months or longer to get to a particular project. Then after she gets it back to the writer, the writer makes changes and back it goes--where it can sit for a while. Same thing with the marketing plan and deciding which books go out when. That all takes time and a publisher has a pretty good idea of how many books they are putting out each year--they don't just take on extras because the writer can write them! (Sure if they are Patterson or Rowling, but guess what? If that happened, another book would very likely get dropped to make room.)


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

ebookeditingpro said:


> I truly understand your concern--that indie authors are somehow watering down the publishing industry. I've found that not to be true at all. In fact, most indie authors are quite talented and have come up with original concepts that were not deemed commercially viable. Having said that, I have run across some books that should not have been put before the reading public.


I do believe that in some cases indie authors are watering down the industry. Truth is, some really are throwing things out there long before they are ready. We indie writers are no more perfect than the traditional industry. Each of us has a business to run and there is a lot to it. Mistakes are made. Books go out before they are ready. It's a simple fact of any growing industry and right now indie authors are in a high growth stage.

Sampling is my friend. For traditional books too--and for that matter, not just books!!!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> Unfortunately, this is no longer nearly as true as it once was. Like with lots of business procedures in a number of fields, editing is getting squeezed as publishing houses cut back on editors and proofreaders. Things are different for each author, and some do enjoy several rounds of revision with dedicated editors, but I've also heard of authors being told that their book will only get the first half edited once and then they are on their own.
> 
> There was a recent NYTimes article about these cutbacks and how the copyediting stage is getting squeezed, leaving traditionally published books with plenty more errors. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-price-of-typos/?hp
> 
> I'll also add that I can't remember the last time I read a traditionally published book that didn't have a typo or an error in it.


I've heard the same thing from authors. Less editing is being done. That does not mean publishing houses put out more books. It just means less time is spent on each one because there are less editors!


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I'll pretty much second what everyone else has already said--the reason it takes 1-2+ years for a traditionally published book to come out has much more to do with the system in place than the fact that the book is being edited, etc. Yes, edits take time, but in that instance you're just one author in a huge pool waiting for the same services. 

I know it can look suspect, but every writer is different, and when they aren't tied down by the constraints of the industry, you'd be surprised by what some people can do. Some writers take months/years to write a single book (let alone revise it!), and some writers let the story brew in their head for a while, then sit down and bang the rough draft out in about a week. That's not to say it doesn't need editing and whatnot after that, but if they have a good, fast editor friend and a professional copywriter, they can be done working on it pretty quickly. 

Also bear in mind that length is much more fluid with indie books ... a lot of authors write novellas (40k words) or novelettes (15k-40k), and these take much less time to write and edit properly (it depends on the genre, but a standard-sized novel can be anywhere from 75k-120k words).

A final point ... a lot of people who start self-publishing have a huge backlist of novels they queried that didn't sell, novels they wrote years ago that just need a little polishing, novels they half-wrote that they can finish quickly, or things that were previously printed that they now own the rights to again. So there's that as well.

When it comes to indies, you can find exceptional quality or terrible dreck. But don't make a judgement based solely on how many books the author released in a year, because there are a zillion factors in play when it comes to that, and every writer is different.


----------



## Richard Raley (May 23, 2011)

I think a lot of it at the moment is just backlist and we'll see some drop off in the years to come.  I do know what you're saying however...when I see some of the #amwriting on twitter going on about 7k+ in a day and the like I get cross eyed trying to imagine how much of it actually made sense.


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Yes, it can be a problem if the author doesn't even spell check, which, sadly, does happen. Or spell checks and thinks that's enough, which, sadly, also does happen. However, I know of several authors that put out books pretty quickly and are very high quality.
> 
> BTW, James Patterson has said he's going back to writing his books himself.


I think Margaret's (Gertie's?) hit the point here - I'm not troubled by anyone producing any sizeable amount of published materials, print or ebook, at whatever value and whether Big 6 or indie-published.

As long as it's good work. Not perfect work - I'm not that picky. But good work - written well, decent story, solid characters, etc.

And I have to add that Margaret's last statement made me laugh a little: "BTW, James Patterson has said he's going back to writing his books himself."

I've got nothing at all against Patterson. I've read and been entertained by a number of his books. But I'm less troubled by indies putting out lots of their own books than I am by someone putting out lots of books, under his name, that he's outlined for someone else to write, then edited at the end.

So I'm happy he's doing it himself now.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

I figure some authors are just prolific. When you think of writers who've written for series books for a packager for books such as Nancy Drew, just to name a well-known one) at the rate of a book a month, then lots of books by one author and being well-written seems more possible. 

Also, as mentioned, authors put out previously published books. Then there are the manuscripts that almost-but-not-quite made it at several major print publishers (for reasons ranging from "the market is too tight right now" to "it made through editoral committee got shot down by marketing" to whatever) that authors feel are "worthy" and it can add up!


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Richard Raley said:


> I think a lot of it at the moment is just backlist and we'll see some drop off in the years to come. I do know what you're saying however...when I see some of the #amwriting on twitter going on about 7k+ in a day and the like I get cross eyed trying to imagine how much of it actually made sense.


I've seen as much as 10K a day. That's what first drafts are for. Some authors bang it out and then put their major efforts into editing.

Just as a reminder, one of the most popular romance authors of all time, Barbara Cartland, wrote a book a month.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Its an interesting thread. I do think there is more "unfinished" stuff being put out by Indy's as a whole then it would be through traditional. That's because anyone, I mean anyone can now sit down on their computer and publish whatever they want. 

And I do think that sometimes there is this urge to make quick bucks. So they put out stuff without proper editing or proof. 

I have even seen a trend where some jump on genre's they think sell good and they churn out a few shorts to make money, admitting all the while that is the only reason they are doing it. 

A large portion of authors that hang out on Kindleboards actively do seem to want to produce quality products, but lets not forget, there is a much larger portion of authors out there doing whatever they want. 

That is why I wouldn't waste my time even reading a sample, unless there are reviews, friends recommendation and maybe blog mentions about a indy book. My time is valuable, so I don't feel like slogging through sample after sample to find one that is good. I eliminate that beforehand. 

This isn't a dig on Indy authors, but just a fact. In addition to backlists and really well written stuff, there is now a large pile of  stuff being put out that shouldn't be. That is again because now anyone can, and can do so quickly and as often as they like. 

So yes, I do believe that in many cases, books are being put out on the market before they are ready. Its the draw of the successful Indy's. Some sold a ton in a very short time. But in the end, when the dust settles, it still has to be a good book. 

I do think a side effect of all of this is that some readers will still stick to looking at the bestseller and best rated lists, just like they did in traditional. So they don't have to slog through a bunch of stuff. 

I think everyone wants everything right now, so waiting a year like with traditional now seems unrealistic. We have become the instant society


----------



## Arthur Slade (Jan 20, 2011)

I operate under the assumption that the good books will rise up by word of mouth and reviews. The bad books will sink. So it doesn't matter how many bad ones are out there. As long as someone is pointing me towards the good ones.


----------



## Evan Couzens (Jul 18, 2011)

If someone doesn't have a full time job, I could see putting out a book every 6 months pretty easily. 500 words an hour isn't particularly frantic, and if you put in 6 hours a day you can have a 90,000 word draft in a couple of months even if you're taking 3 day weekends.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

When Piers Anthony was at his peak, he was putting out 3 full-length novels a year in 3 different series, if I recall correctly. And check out Isaac Asimov's bibliography. 

While neither of those authors was writing Pulitzer Prize-winning stuff, necessarily, they weren't hacks, either.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

foreverjuly said:


> There was a recent NYTimes article about these cutbacks and how the copyediting stage is getting squeezed, leaving traditionally published books with plenty more errors. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/the-price-of-typos/?hp


This happened to an acquaintance of mine. She was invited to be the official biographer of a deceased public figure. The book was published by a Big Six publisher. The publisher contracted an outside copyeditor. It turned out the gal had absolutely no grasp of basic grammar (she actually went back and changed my friend's correct grammar to incorrect grammar). Things became complicated, but the short version is that the editor's edits were the ones published. The book is FILLED with embarrassing mistakes and every review on Amazon is about how the author is an idiot who doesn't know how to use a comma. My acquaintance has her Ph.D in English.

But to the original topic at hand... Yes to what everyone else said.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

With authors in their "traditional" publishing they are published at a rate determined by the publisher (geez, could I use the word "publish" more in that last sentence?).  As an Indie, I feel the only way I can compete is with volume.  The only way I might ever make a living at this is by having more books out there so that when people do searches, they can find me.  I set my own publishing timeline.  I can usually write a novel in about 2 months, a month if necessary.  Then I can edit it and get it formatted in a couple of weeks and have it out pretty quick.  

The bigger named published authors spread things out more.  That comes from the desire not to over-saturate the bookstores.  However, with, essentially, online-only publishing the only way to be seen side-by-side with other authors is to have more out there than anyone else.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

KateDanley said:


> This happened to an acquaintance of mine. She was invited to be the official biographer of a deceased public figure. The book was published by a Big Six publisher. The publisher contracted an outside copyeditor. It turned out the gal had absolutely no grasp of basic grammar (she actually went back and changed my friend's correct grammar to incorrect grammar). Things became complicated, but the short version is that the editor's edits were the ones published. The book is FILLED with embarrassing mistakes and every review on Amazon is about how the author is an idiot who doesn't know how to use a comma. My acquaintance has her Ph.D in English.


That is definitely a horror story.



> But to the original topic at hand... Yes to what everyone else said.
> 
> I, personally, have found that time reveals new ways of saying things. My experience has shown a little incubation time, a little "hold the horses" delay, has never been a bad thing. A little distance from my manuscript has allowed me to see things and fix problems that I couldn't see because I was too close to the story. But sometimes time also results in overworking a section. I have been told the strongest portions of my currently released book (which sat in my desk for five years) are actually the ones that I did the least editing to. The book I'm gearing up to release has taken me six months to write from beginning to end, so I'd be happy to report back with a highly scientific comparison of five years vs. six months. Steel Magnolias was written in two weeks. Wasn't On The Road written in three weeks or something? I write sketch and have to say, some of my strongest pieces are the ones that almost seemed to write themselves. But even my "six month" manuscript has gone through four revisions, two beta readers, and one copyeditor.


Even JKR has said she would like to rewrite every one of the HP books.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I've read that Outliers book as well as other writing advice that talks about the "mastery" you get after a million words.  If I'm doing the math correctly, every author's 11th book will be a masterpiece.    Suzanne Collins did write about a dozen or so books before she wrote the Hunger Games, so ... maybe the prolific writers are onto something?


----------



## Koi (Apr 28, 2010)

I will admit to being... if not disturbed, at least given pause, by the appearance of a writer engaging in churning.  (Although, prolific titles alone aren't the cautionary flag for me.)  I will also admit to being influenced toward that assumption by several additional factors:  Avatar, choice of user name, and choice of quotes all play a part in my internal calculations.  If there are a lot of book covers, and not a lot of years on the author's personal image, I find that there's an instant loss of gravitas.  I also tend to view a display of many many covers as a of lack of restraint and experience.  A tease is better than a bludgeon, and someone who's writing and yet doesn't understand that, probably hasn't figured out how to tease and beguile me with their words and plotting, either.  

Then there are the covers themselves, which are responsible for the lion's share of my personal assessment of the 'indie' phenomenon as a whole.  Judging by the covers, independents are the ultra-niche, self indulgent, or pedestrian at best, and it isn't the length of queue waiting at the big houses that's kept these otherwise great works from print.    I understand that writers can't be expected to be graphic artists, but a lot of the covers I see aren't minor faux pas of design. The average cover displays a lack of discrimination or taste that gives the impression that the insides will be messy as well.  Many indie book covers venture way beyond average, however.  They're abysmal bordering on heinous.   Yes, there is such a thing as sampling, but no, I don't sample feces in the belief I'm missing a good turd.   

I am certain there are authors out there for whom self-publishing is exactly the perfect new conduit for what is truly art they've pulled from their very souls to be shared through at long last.  Unfortunately, there are muddy and foul oceans hiding these few pearls.  If we were allowed to express the negatives of this new e-publishing phenomenon, the wise could learn the obstacles, and alter course.  But so far, I can't spot them, and I have developed a nimble and active aversion to any whiff of 'indie'.   I just don't have the time to paddle about, and I read to savor and connect with a human soul, not to accrue title counts. AND- I've learned to stay quiet, because waves of fanbois and tender bleaters pound down on anyone who dares to air the kind frank observations I just have.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

**** This has been a great discussion, but, if I may, just a friendly reminder:  authors, we're in the Book Corner so please refrain from mentioning your own books but, rather, address the question from the point of view of yourself as 'reader'.  You can, of course, address your own approach in the Writer's Cafe.  Some posts have been edited . . .****


----------



## Jonathan Dalar (Jul 15, 2011)

It appears to be a combination of reasons.

First, major publishing houses do take a lot more time from contract to completion than an indie writer does putting it out for sale.  The writing would take the same time, but the simple corporate, bureaucratic nature of publishing means it takes longer to accomplish the same things the indie author can do on their own with their own resources.  Even doing it right and accounting for an author's consignment of an editor and a graphic design artist, it doesn't take anywhere close to the lead time the publisher needs.

Second, I think we are seeing a lot of backlog showing up all at once.  Many authors have probably written multiple books, and they feel there's no reason to wait on publication.  This leads to the appearance of putting them out with shoddy results, without a lack of attention to detail, editing, or proofing, even if the author has taken all the care in the world for them.

Third, there is a lot of slush out there that is simply bad stuff.  It's the nature of a vehicle that allows one to publish openly without any gates or checks and balances to the quality.  And while I think it's a good thing to operate this way, it unfortunately leads to a lot of horrible writing making its way into the mix.  Many times these are likely the same writers who would have gone with a vanity publisher before the opportunity of e-publishing presented.  Ultimately readership (or a lack thereof) will provide a reasonable sort of quality control, or at least offer clues to the discerning buyer as to the quality of the book.

Together, these push the rate of book-churning by indie authors to a high level.  Who knows where it will go, but it is an interesting time in the world of publishing, that's for sure.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Koi said:


> I will admit to being... if not disturbed, at least given pause, by the appearance of a writer engaging in churning. (Although, prolific titles alone aren't the cautionary flag for me.) I will also admit to being influenced toward that assumption by several additional factors: Avatar, choice of user name, and choice of quotes all play a part in my internal calculations. If there are a lot of book covers, and not a lot of years on the author's personal image, I find that there's an instant loss of gravitas. I also tend to view a display of many many covers as a of lack of restraint and experience. A tease is better than a bludgeon, and someone who's writing and yet doesn't understand that, probably hasn't figured out how to tease and beguile me with their words and plotting, either.
> 
> Then there are the covers themselves, which are responsible for the lion's share of my personal assessment of the 'indie' phenomenon as a whole. Judging by the covers, independents are the ultra-niche, self indulgent, or pedestrian at best, and it isn't the length of queue waiting at the big houses that's kept these otherwise great works from print. I understand that writers can't be expected to be graphic artists, but a lot of the covers I see aren't minor faux pas of design. The average cover displays a lack of discrimination or taste that gives the impression that the insides will be messy as well. Many indie book covers venture way beyond average, however. They're abysmal bordering on heinous. Yes, there is such a thing as sampling, but no, I don't sample feces in the belief I'm missing a good turd.
> 
> I am certain there are authors out there for whom self-publishing is exactly the perfect new conduit for what is truly art they've pulled from their very souls to be shared through at long last. Unfortunately, there are muddy and foul oceans hiding these few pearls. If we were allowed to express the negatives of this new e-publishing phenomenon, the wise could learn the obstacles, and alter course. But so far, I can't spot them, and I have developed a nimble and active aversion to any whiff of 'indie'. I just don't have the time to paddle about, and I read to savor and connect with a human soul, not to accrue title counts. AND- I've learned to stay quiet, because waves of fanbois and tender bleaters pound down on anyone who dares to air the kind frank observations I just have.


Well, glad you feel comfortable speaking up. 

I used to review for a large site. Self-published and even some small press books weren't allowed. That didn't mean authors/publishers didn't send them. I tried just about all that were sent my way and there was a more general lack of storyline or quality in a number of them.

As a reader, one of the differences for me now is...price. I love certain authors and would buy even more of their books than I do, but at 8 dollars a pop, it's nice that the indie movement has given me another place to look. At prices of 99 cents and $2.99 I'm willing to sample. That doesn't mean they are all gems. And some have bad covers, but I admit, I'm a cover snob. I love Patricia Briggs (trad published) but I think her Mercy Thompson books have some of the ugliest covers going. There's a book out by Tor called "White Zombie Trash" or something like that. Ugliest cover I've ever laid eyes on. All at 8 dollars a pop. So I sample.

One of the books I recently had in my cart, BELOVED by all my friends...the price gave me a bit of pause so I sampled. Hmm. Three chapters in I was not convinced I needed to spend that kind of money. The author's website had a larger sample. Six chapters in, I decided I wasn't buying it.

I went back through my wishlist and sampled every author on there--trad, indie, stranger on the street. Two more got taken off the list and I ended up buying a book I really enjoyed from a very small publisher.

There's no real point to my rambling other than to say that because of high prices, I am willing to give some indies a go. And because of high prices, I'm much, much choosier about buying trad books. It's a pocketbook issue more than anything.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

I wholeheartedly second, third, & fourth.....use professional editors! I realize that they cost $, but a talented editor is more than just somebody doing formatting, proofing, & grammmar checks, they can also help with storyline & structure. Of course many writers think they dont need that....& most of them are wrong.

I'm a technical writer & I've gone head to head with many an editor...& their input is very valuable, esp. if you can put your ego aside.

And as a reader....believe me, I can tell when you didnt have one. For me it's not typos & spelling, I'll ignore alot of that. But it does take a good well-written story,  period. A few flashes of greatness or eloquence & an "interesting" story won't cut it.....I'll drop the book if that's all there is.


----------



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

It's sure my impression that the indie world is being taken over by traditional authors putting up their backlists. That makes for its own set of problems because a lot of those books also look like they've been scanned, and proofreading is a problem there too. I'm reading one right now that's quite good, but I hit a scanning/proofing error last night that had me stopped for quite a while as I puzzled over what this one OCR error should be. It took me completely out of the story. Not a good thing.

I sample religiously except for a few favorite authors, and it doesn't seem like wading through slush to me. The samples I choose are because the descriptions appeal and usually a recommendation somewhere made me go look at that book in the first place. Samples are great bedtime reading for me. If I start an actual book and it's good I may sit up all night reading and drag the next day. With samples I read to the end, make my yay or nay decision and go to sleep.

One thing I noticed the other day while checking out some descriptions on Amazon - a lot of backlist books being put up have non-existent, terrible, or error-filled descriptions. And it looked to me as if the ones I saw like that were being put up by publishers, not authors.


----------



## Koi (Apr 28, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> Well, glad you feel comfortable speaking up.
> 
> I used to review for a large site. Self-published and even some small press books weren't allowed. That didn't mean authors/publishers didn't send them. I tried just about all that were sent my way and there was a more general lack of storyline or quality in a number of them.
> 
> ...


LOL! Not sure I do feel comfortable, but I've been goaded out of the shadows. And I while I'd like to read books for less, and indeed big publishers are starting to destroy book covers as art- I just can't get past the stiff-necked refusal to learn from honest critique that seems to be the norm of the self-publishers who are visible on ebook and genre fiction forums. I'm well and truly soured by having watched said forums become rendered useless via self-promotion and marketeering. Any time its taken to task, there is much fainting and rending of clothing, and swooning false humility. And lots of medics... er, fans.... defenders... run out to cover the fainted. I guess when the new-fangled dust settles, most of this will resolve itself. I hope.

Speaking of Sara Douglass- she had a trilogy that was good. It was followed by another trilogy that was a continuance of the same world, same storyline. It was unreadable for glaring errors that were not punctuation or grammar. She violated her own maps. Characters would leave Town X, and head south, and encounter towns L, M, and N along the way, and arrive in Town Z. But on the map and for the previous trilogy in that same world, Town X was south of Town Z, and Towns L, M, and N were on opposite sides of an ocean. Or some such ridiculousness. Characters turned up in places they'd long vacated in previous chapters, and the action was all out of whack per previously established timelines. She should have agonized before publishing, at least a little.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Some publishers are playing with release strategies now as they see how quickly indies' series can rise.

Jennifer Blake -- who's published over 60 books, has hit the _NY Times_ and other bestseller lists, and won numerous awards -- recently launched a new Tudor romance series (THE THREE GRACES) through MIRA (part of Harlequin). MIRA decided they would pub the trilogy back-to-back, with a book out each in July, August and September. Despite being prolific, Jennifer told me that was the hardest work she's ever done as she was proofing galleys from one book while doing last edits on another and completing a third. She vowed she'd never be doing that again .

Still, if the marketing strategy works for her, MIRA may well be making that a norm for many of their series going forward...


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Koi said:


> LOL! Not sure I do feel comfortable, but I've been goaded out of the shadows. And I while I'd like to read books for less, and indeed big publishers are starting to destroy book covers as art- I just can't get past the stiff-necked refusal to learn from honest critique that seems to be the norm of the self-publishers who are visible on ebook and genre fiction forums. I'm well and truly soured by having watched said forums become rendered useless via self-promotion and marketeering. Any time its taken to task, there is much fainting and rending of clothing, and swooning false humility. And lots of medics... er, fans.... defenders... run out to cover the fainted. I guess when the new-fangled dust settles, most of this will resolve itself. I hope.


The only critique group I was ever on was Baen's and let me tell you there were no medics there--I know this because after a session there, I needed more than a medic! It was more like an out-of-body death experience where I needed a miracle! And the Baen people are *nice* about it!!!! 

Honestly, the Baen critique works because it's moderated and it's also not a forum where just anyone can wander by (anyone can join, but registration is required and finding the various stories and joining in on a critique takes some footwork and participation.) The semi-private status makes for a good forum. Any time any writer gets a big head, they should wander over there for a day or so.

I don't think I could do an open-forum critique group (I've heard of several where pieces are "voted" on and so on. I've also heard they become some sort of political buying of friends as it were).

Will the new-fangled dust settle? Hmm. I do not know. I think what will likely happen is that as authors are unable to make money, they will be less inclined to continue putting books out. Writing, even bad writing (and believe me every writer has done some bad writing!) takes an enormous amount of time and energy. Right now some are making some money, maybe even getting close to making a living. But many, many more have put a lot of work into a book or three and may not even be at break even. This fact right there, more than any other factor, will have many a creative soul looking for a more viable outlet.

It's different when you are trying to get published traditionally and being rejected (sometimes/many time without even a page being read.) At that point, you haven't had READERS reject you, just some faceless publisher or agent. But if you get your actual book out there and decide that marketing is too much work or find that readers aren't buying for whatever reason...I can't believe every author out there will just keep churning out books. It's waaaaaay too much work to do it.

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Koi (Apr 28, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> The only critique group I was ever on was Baen's and let me tell you there were no medics there--I know this because after a session there, I needed more than a medic! It was more like an out-of-body death experience where I needed a miracle! And the Baen people are *nice* about it!!!!


Constructive critique of work is a highly specialized skill. Learning from and implementing a good critique is also a skill. Good on ya if you've submitted to it, that's for sure! An _open_ critique forum sounds like a recipe for disaster, though.

What I lament in my posts here today is just surface stuff. Signature lines in the forum, and what I think they're saying about the writer, determine what I download and sample. If authors want to know what makes we the readers go for the sample, then topics like this one could help.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.
> 
> But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.
> 
> ...


I saw a survey once that polled published authors. One of the questions was how many books did you write before getting a contract. A fair number of people reported 5 - 10 books. As many have already noted, many indies will write for years, and when they are finally done with the "query-go-round" they have a huge body of work to "put out there."
Now some will say&#8230;.well that "rejected work" must not have been any good because after all it was "rejected". I don't agree. In the "old days" there were only so many available slots and many great books were passed by because there wasn't enough bandwidth to put out all "worthy books". Now indie authors are putting out these "near misses". 
Good books, if marketed well, will find an audience. If the books were "not ready for primetime" they'll fade into obscurity. 
And yes writers create at different paces. I know one author that can do 10,000 words a sitting. He tends to "binge write". Now of course that is done NaNoWriMo style - and will require extensive editing - but when writing at that rate he can finish a novel very quickly.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

jmanasu said:


> I believe that publishing houses pull the wool over our eyes a little. When a book is "finished", it's a year or longer before it reaches the shelves in most cases. Does it really take that much polish to go from what the writer did to when it finally comes out? I don't know. Maybe it's like someone who orders take out and then pretends like they spent the day slaving over the hot stove.
> 
> Just my 1 1/2 cents.


The book is not being "polished" over that year. The editing process is pretty much the same "elapsed time" regardless of release date. The long delay has more to do with what the next available slot in the queue is. Orbit but out its Fall/Winter 2011/2012 in May and the books in that catalogue will be released September - February. The "content" for the catalog was "finished" a month or so before it came out. Also many of the review sites have long lead times (4 - 6 months) so again the "release date" is set far into the future to allow for time to create the ARCs (Advanced Reading Copies).


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

I think it can be fairly easy for an author to write a book a month. Just look at the Nanowrimo challenge every November. Add in a month to edit, and that could turn into six books a year, easily. 

Or, take Amanda Hocking for example. While she was waiting for rejection after rejection, she kept writing, and then decided to publish the books herself instead of getting rejected any more. She put out one after the other, like every 90 days or so. Now, I haven't read her books, and only know of her notoriety...a member of my writing group said her books were absolute drivel. But with Indie books or traditionally published books, there's always going to be great books and there's going to be sludge. I'm sure there's authors out there who can produce those six books a year and have top quality.

On the other hand, with the ebook pubbing trend, there's so MUCH drivel out there, it's hard for the great books to rise to the top.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

rweinstein6 said:


> On the other hand, with the ebook pubbing trend, there's so MUCH drivel out there, it's hard for the great books to rise to the top.


I'll respectfully disagree. I have no problem finding "quality" reads from indies - but I get many of my selections from the top 100 lists. Books selling well enough to make the lists are getting there because of word of mouth which = quality. The drivel fades into obsecurity without fanfare (or so in my experience.


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.
> But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.
> When James Patterson releases a new book every quarter, people decry the drop in quality from churning out mass-produced drivel. This with the help of his ghost writers, editors, and publisher.
> I've always thought it took time to write, edit, and polish a novel as best as it could be.
> ...


Most indie books are bad. Most traditionally published books are bad. Most readers who do not sample deserve what they buy.


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

Interesting discussion! I'm always disappointed when a book is poorly written, but how long it takes an author to write a book doesn't really concern me. Two of my favorite books published by a major publisher are *The Poisonwood Bible* by Barbara Kingsolver and *The Road* by Cormac McCarthy. It took Barbara Kingsolver ten years to write *The Poisonwood Bible*; it took Cormac McCarthy only three _weeks_ to write *The Road*, and that novel won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. 

As others have mentioned, it's really difficult to tell how long it took an indie author to publish a book. Some authors have a huge backlist and, with the popularity of the Kindle and other eBook sites, are now self-publishing those books. Due to the popularity of the Kindle, some authors are also arranging to have their book rights returned to them from traditional and indie publishers, so that they can self-publish some of their books at lower prices on Kindle.

Many indie authors hire book cover artists and editors, but are able to do this much more quickly than the big publishing houses because they're hiring the artists and editors directly, with an understanding that they'll complete their work within months rather than years. And, anyone publishing directly to Kindle doesn't need to wait two years for book covers to be designed, editing to be done, books to be printed, and distributors to store paperbacks and hardcovers.


----------



## J.K. Arauz (Jan 10, 2011)

I'm not disturbed at the rate books are hitting virtual shelves, but I am bothered to see how quickly a lot of indie writers go from the writing stage to the publishing stage. I see a lot of updates on FB from indie writers who will announce (pretend it's Wednesday), "I just finished writing ____! I'm going to put it up on Amazon and Smashwords this weekend."

Seriously? You _just_ finished writing it! D:

I'm stopping here before I fall into a rant LOL


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

Many Indies have a back-list of books gathering electronic dust. A number of traditional published bestselling genre authors have four books released a year.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I'm not disturbed at the rate books are hitting virtual shelves, but I am bothered to see how quickly a lot of indie writers go from the writing stage to the publishing stage. I see a lot of updates on FB from indie writers who will announce (pretend it's Wednesday), "I just finished writing ____! I'm going to put it up on Amazon and Smashwords this weekend."
> 
> Seriously? You _just_ finished writing it! D:
> 
> I'm stopping here before I fall into a rant LOL


This freaks me out. When I say I'm done on Wednesday, usually I'm referring to, you know, reading the final galley. Anytime I see "I just finished writing and editing it myself, no typos, so I'm putting it up tonight", I just move on along and save myself the 99 cents.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> This freaks me out. When I say I'm done on Wednesday, usually I'm referring to, you know, reading the final galley. Anytime I see "I just finished writing and editing it myself, no typos, so I'm putting it up tonight", I just move on along and save myself the 99 cents.


I have to agree, it freaks me out a little too when I see someone post that they have finished writing and will have that book published in a few weeks. The time it takes for me to finish writing to publish is often 4-6 months. I think time needs to be taken to properly review, revise, and edit books before they hit the virtual shelves.


----------



## Chris Turner (Jul 23, 2011)

Yeah, I agree with many comments in this thread that the "good" indie books will survive by word of mouth and having good reviews on reputable sites, and the bad ones will stay in the "slush pile".  Back list probably accounts for 80% of the flood of multiple titles in short periods and will likely taper off over time.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> I saw a survey once that polled published authors. One of the questions was *how many books did you write before getting a contract. A fair number of people reported 5  10 books. *


This is an interesting statement, thank you.

Because with the cheap and accessible books from indies and small publishers, it allows for *anything* to be available from an author. If I try one book...say a first or second book for an author...and it's not especially good...I probably wont come back. At least with a publishing house behind you and some professional polishing AND discretion, with a little luck, an author's early 'rehearsals' may remain hidden (at least while they build a reputation).

Being able to publish _ALL _ your books electronically may not necessarily serve "new" authors well.

Thank goodness for samples (for readers) but even those might not save you.

Edit: I guess I didnt understand all the distinctions...when I wrote 'indies' I also meant self-publishers, but apparently it is not the same. Will be more clear in the future.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> I have to agree, it freaks me out a little too when I see someone post that they have finished writing and will have that book published in a few weeks. The time it takes for me to finish writing to publish is often 4-6 months. I think time needs to be taken to properly review, revise, and edit books before they hit the virtual shelves.


If it's a shorter project, I can see it not taking as long, since it's, well you know, shorter. However, finishing a novel on Wednesday, editor goes over it on Thursday, and it's published on Saturday? (I've seen this scenario twice now on Twitter). Um, no thanks.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

9MMare said:


> Thank goodness for samples (for readers) but even those might not save you.


One reason I gave up reading unknown-to-me self-published authors was because I found a lot had really good chapters 1-3. And then...not so much. After a while, I realized that chapters 1-3 is often what's being sent to agents and publishers as part of a query. For many, they'd really done an outstanding job in the opening chapters and, slowly, the book just gets worse from there.

I saw it a lot, too, when I used to slush read novels. The opening was outstandingly strong. Then, it slowly died.

I was on a panel last year at a readercon and someone said he wanted a "page 157" (or whatever it was) sample. He said middle of the book was how he determined if he'd buy a book or not. Never the beginning. I wish there was that sampling option, too!


----------



## Marilyn Peake (Aug 8, 2011)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I'm not disturbed at the rate books are hitting virtual shelves, but I am bothered to see how quickly a lot of indie writers go from the writing stage to the publishing stage. I see a lot of updates on FB from indie writers who will announce (pretend it's Wednesday), "I just finished writing ____! I'm going to put it up on Amazon and Smashwords this weekend."
> 
> Seriously? You _just_ finished writing it! D:


Ahhhhhh, I agree with those sentiments! Writing the first version of a novel should lead to the editing stage, NOT the publishing stage!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

balaspa said:


> With authors in their "traditional" publishing they are published at a rate determined by the publisher (geez, could I use the word "publish" more in that last sentence?). As an Indie, I feel the only way I can compete is with volume. The only way I might ever make a living at this is by having more books out there so that when people do searches, they can find me. I set my own publishing timeline. I can usually write a novel in about 2 months, a month if necessary. Then I can edit it and get it formatted in a couple of weeks and have it out pretty quick.
> 
> The bigger named published authors spread things out more. That comes from the desire not to over-saturate the bookstores. However, with, essentially, online-only publishing the only way to be seen side-by-side with other authors is to have more out there than anyone else.


*shakes head*

I'm just one reader, but for my anecdotal opinion, please see my last post.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Atunah said:


> And I do think that sometimes there is this urge to make quick bucks. So they put out stuff without proper editing or proof.
> 
> I have even seen *a trend where some jump on genre's they think sell good and they churn out a few shorts to make money*, admitting all the while that is the only reason they are doing it.


From some of the threads I see here on the K-boards, I often wonder the same thing. (I dont visit other book/author sites). OTOH, I can see some people struggling to live on their writing, period. But then again, I probably want to steer clear of those books.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I'm not going to put any author (or musician, or athlete, etc.) down for trying to make money. I'd venture to guess that at least 90% of us do whatever we do for a living primarily to make money and put food on our tables (and roofs over those tables).

Of course, that being said, I'm not necessarily going to want to read a lot of such books, myself.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

NogDog said:


> I'm not going to put any author (or musician, or athlete, etc.) down for trying to make money. I'd venture to guess that at least 90% of us do whatever we do for a living primarily to make money and put food on our tables (and roofs over those tables).
> 
> Of course, that being said, I'm not necessarily going to want to read a lot of such books, myself.


Pretty much what I was saying, yes?


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If it's a shorter project, I can see it not taking as long, since it's, well you know, shorter. However, finishing a novel on Wednesday, editor goes over it on Thursday, and it's published on Saturday? (I've seen this scenario twice now on Twitter). Um, no thanks.


I can agree with you there too. Shorter work takes less time to go over. So, with that in mind a few weeks is okay. But even with that, finished on Wednesday published on Saturday is ridiculous.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

J.K. Arauz said:


> I'm not disturbed at the rate books are hitting virtual shelves, but I am bothered to see how quickly a lot of indie writers go from the writing stage to the publishing stage. I see a lot of updates on FB from indie writers who will announce (pretend it's Wednesday), "I just finished writing ____! I'm going to put it up on Amazon and Smashwords this weekend."
> 
> Seriously? You _just_ finished writing it! D:
> 
> I'm stopping here before I fall into a rant LOL


I have to agree with this one. Between letting the book "gestate" and editing sweeps for plotting, and grammar, then line editing and galley proofing, the quick turnover rate some people reach does make me raise my eyebrows quite a bit.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> I have to agree with this one. Between letting the book "gestate" and editing sweeps for plotting. and grammar, then line editing and galley proofing, the quick turnover rate some people reach does make me raise my eyebrows quite a bit.


Agreed. When I go back and look at what I've published...even with an editor...sometimes I wonder! It definitely takes time and refreshing the perspective.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

9MMare said:


> Agreed. When I go back and look at what I've published...even with an editor...sometimes I wonder! It definitely takes time and refreshing the perspective.


In my opinion, writing a draft, letting it set while you go on to another work in first draft, and then returning to revise/rewrite is the best bet. If the rough draft is too "fresh," you simply can't see the problems with it. Giving it a couple months or a year and then returning to it is an imperative for some writers. Fresh eyes, at a distance, are crucial, in my experience.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I'm an indie author (both self-published and currently with a traditional publisher) and yes, I'm a bit freaked out about the amount of work being churned out, especially since I've read and reviewed about 30 indie books over the last couple of years, and most of them could have used another draft or two. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy them or that they were poorly written; just that the authors could have taken their books to a whole other level with work.

I've been reading blogs from a couple of well known authors who encourage writers to churn out a lot of product to increase their chances of making e-book sales. But I'm a writer first, and I just can't throw anything out there without a bunch of drafts, professional editing and running most of the book by my critique group.

My publisher would like me to write a book a year which is okay for now because the first three were finished before I signed my first contract. But I worry about when I'll catch up to myself, so to speak. I will be allowed to produce a book every 18 months after that point, but honestly, I've never really understood the pressure to publish. The general consensus is that publishing often keeps your name out there in a hugely competitive environment. But I tell you, I was a big fan of P.D. James who put out a book every 4 years, and I had no trouble remembering her. It's baffling and sometimes stressful. Writing quickly but with quality is the great challenge in my life right now. It's also the main reason I don't post on Kindle boards that often!

Debra


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2011)

There is another reason for the longer lead time in traditional publishing, which is marketing. The traditional publishers will send out ARCs for review to major media, to generate press before the book comes out. However major newspapers often have a six month lead time on reviews or promotion. Television can be similar. The extra months before the completed book is released is the trade-off for the larger exposure these sources can provide on launch.

As most indie authors and small press use smaller media sources (if any) the waiting time for marketing is lower or non-existant.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

Rightly or wrongly, I have avoided indie authors with so many books out in a short period of time. I know what people are saying about back catalogues etc, but I still wonder. I know there are some wonderful indie authors out there and I buy as many as I can, but I do get suspicious when I am confronted with fifteen books released in two years. If someone can set me straight on a prolific indie author, I would be happy to buy a book to see.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Any writer publishing a few shorts as a way to make money is going to be in for a rude surprise...I *Stopped* writing shorts when I self-published the novels.  There's virtually *no* money in it.  Yes, my collections of shorts (which were years in the making/submitting/some stories published with ezines) sell a few copies per month.  Let's say 30 copies a month on average (which is closer to the average when they first come out.)  That is NOT a significant money-maker.  It might make enough to go out for pizza once or, on a banner month, twice a month.  

There was no money in shorts before self-publishing.  Even for a writer who writes fast and is occasionally published by a big-ish magazine there is no money in it. We're talking HIGH end maybe 500 dollars for a story.  Most writers don't get accepted into that kind of venue more than once a year IF EVER.  Write a longer story and get paid 700 by Baen or Intergalactic or Asimovs?  How far is that going to stretch?  Not very.  Yes, it pays for more than a pizza or two, but no writer can count on getting into those magazines often enough to sit and churn stories out on the vague hope they can sell enough of them.  

If it takes a writer even a week to write such a story, the bad news is this:  It takes six months to 2 years to get a response of yes or no from high-paying magazines.  Some magazines allow only one story per author at a time.  Some magazines don't say they allow only one story, but if they start recognizing your name as filling the slush, they are apt to send the entire bundle back--rejected and unread. 

Readers don't buy short stories often enough for it to be a very viable way to make money.  These days, readers get a lot of shorts for FREE from magazines, and it's (apparently) enough to satisfy them for the most part.  

I still have short stories that I think are good enough to be published.  I don't wish to sell them at 99 cents because I don't think the readers want to pay that for a single short (I've tested that route by getting a short accepted to a magazine who publishes them as singles and in an anthology.  While it does relatively well, it is not something that is going to "pay out" after initial royalties.)  

Some collections can sell a fair number of copies in some genres, but a collection can take almost as much time to write as a novel.  Given the fact that statistically they will not sell as well as a novel...this writer is not going to spend much time there.

And, of course, that could be true of novels in a few years for a lot of writers, which brings me back to the point of where the number of entries being published per month overall will eventually level or slow.  If novels don't sell, the desire to write will be tempered in some of us.  Or at least the desire to go to all the trouble to publish it will.    

If that doesn't stop us, the sheer economics will.  The need to make a living and feed oneself will ultimately drive writers to some line of work that pays.  That leaves less time for writing or publishing.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

I just sample anything that looks interesting. If the premise sounds intriguing and the writing sample is professional and well written, I'll go for it. The weaker books don't hold up that far. Once in a while I'll lose interest after having purchased it, but that happens with established authors as well.

Kindle and Nook have gradually made me aware of the importance of that sample, and having the book constructed in a way that allows for an interesting sample download. 

As I posted earlier, I started with eight novels previously published in hardcover and library editions, plus a couple in trade paperback, a catalogue going back to 2001. I've added a free short story and some 99 cents short stories as glorified writing samples. I've never been able to produce a decent novel in less than four to six months. That's just me.

Sample


----------



## rweinstein6 (Aug 2, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> One reason I gave up reading unknown-to-me self-published authors was because I found a lot had really good chapters 1-3. And then...not so much. After a while, I realized that chapters 1-3 is often what's being sent to agents and publishers as part of a query. For many, they'd really done an outstanding job in the opening chapters and, slowly, the book just gets worse from there.
> 
> I saw it a lot, too, when I used to slush read novels. The opening was outstandingly strong. Then, it slowly died.
> 
> I was on a panel last year at a readercon and someone said he wanted a "page 157" (or whatever it was) sample. He said middle of the book was how he determined if he'd buy a book or not. Never the beginning. I wish there was that sampling option, too!


Interesting!


----------



## T.M.souders author (Jun 2, 2011)

While the rate of traditionally published novels is so slow due to the publisher and not how fast the author writes it or has it available, I agree that it disturbs me when I see authors that say it only took them 2 weeks to write a novel. That's crazy!! I've read some of those novels and they're..eh...


> I was on a panel last year at a readercon and someone said he wanted a "page 157" (or whatever it was) sample. He said middle of the book was how he determined if he'd buy a book or not. Never the beginning. I wish there was that sampling option, too!


I wish they did have that option!


----------



## MoonlitDreams (Apr 15, 2011)

I agree with others who have said many times what you are seeing is an author's back list that they have been working on for a very long time. 

You also sometimes see people who don't have a day job. Think about it, spending 40+ hours a week on your manuscript, editing, formatting, etc.  Books don't take that long when you have all day, every day to work on them. I can crank out about 8,000 written words a day (sometimes more if I don't have interruptions). If the average novel is 80,000 words, it would take about 10 days to actually write that book. It's going to take a lot longer than that, because there's the idea stage, the outlining, then the writing. After that comes the editing, formatting, book cover design, and publishing. Technically speaking I could pop a novel out every 30 days and still have a quality product. It's all about how much time you have per day to dedicate to your craft.

That little example being said, I usually take about 3-6 months per novel, because I am easily distractable!


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

Usually in awe / jealous, but rarely disturbed by the speed. Disturbed by some other things though


----------



## Larry Marshall (Jan 2, 2011)

T.M.souders said:


> While the rate of traditionally published novels is so slow due to the publisher and not how fast the author writes it or has it available, I agree that it disturbs me when I see authors that say it only took them 2 weeks to write a novel. That's crazy!! I've read some of those novels and they're..eh...


Different people write in different ways. I've mentioned that I wrote a novel draft in less than three weeks. I do this regularly, in fact. But that draft required months of revision and editing before it could be published as a novel.

I have a harder time when full-time authors say they have written one book a year. Yes, traditional publishing prevents them from publishing faster than that but I wonder what they do with their time. So did people like Stephen King, who had to write under pseudonyms to publish his normal output.


----------



## T.M.souders author (Jun 2, 2011)

> Different people write in different ways. I've mentioned that I wrote a novel draft in less than three weeks. I do this regularly, in fact. But that draft required months of revision and editing before it could be published as a novel.


The specific examples I was thinking of were also edited and churned out within a couple weeks as well. It is true (sorry,I didn't mean to imply it wasn't) that there are people that can write an awesome book in only a matter of weeks. I's a whole diff. story when the author takes several months then, heck even a month, to edit before publishing. Hey, look at Amanda Hocking. She admitted it took her only 2 weeks to write a lot of her books and she's a millionaire now. Tons of people love her books. (Although they were/are in desperate need of good editing).


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> Any writer publishing a few shorts as a way to make money is going to be in for a rude surprise...I *Stopped* writing shorts when I self-published the novels. There's virtually *no* money in it. Yes, my collections of shorts (which were years in the making/submitting/some stories published with ezines) sell a few copies per month. <snip>
> 
> There was no money in shorts before self-publishing. Even for a writer who writes fast and is occasionally published by a big-ish magazine there is no money in it. We're talking HIGH end maybe 500 dollars for a story. Most writers don't get accepted into that kind of venue more than once a year IF EVER. Write a longer story and get paid 700 by Baen or Intergalactic or Asimovs? How far is that going to stretch? <snip>


I can only speak for myself, who hasn't been doing a good job lately with keeping her short stories going. I've done not bad with selling reprints and the like for my fiction. I don't have a large enough pot to say "I can make a living off this", but I've been really pleased with how I can sell to market and then sell reprints.

My trick has been that I don't sell to traditional magazine markets. Being Canadian means I can often get into Canadian magazines with my fiction, who are looking for flash fiction on very specific themes. I have one 600 word story that has done a good job making me money. For something that took me maybe an hour tops to write and edit, I've made a decent amount of money off it.

Now, with all that said, I really love short fiction and I find it key to keeping my sanity alive when I'm balancing novels and deadlines. So, it is a side project for me. And, in five years, I no doubt will still be saying "Maria, no, I don't make a living off my short fiction, but I still make decent money off it."


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I can only speak for myself, who hasn't been doing a good job lately with keeping her short stories going. I've done not bad with selling reprints and the like for my fiction. I don't have a large enough pot to say "I can make a living off this", but I've been really pleased with how I can sell to market and then sell reprints.
> 
> My trick has been that I don't sell to traditional magazine markets. Being Canadian means I can often get into Canadian magazines with my fiction, who are looking for flash fiction on very specific themes. I have one 600 word story that has done a good job making me money. For something that took me maybe an hour tops to write and edit, I've made a decent amount of money off it.
> 
> Now, with all that said, I really love short fiction and I find it key to keeping my sanity alive when I'm balancing novels and deadlines. So, it is a side project for me. And, in five years, I no doubt will still be saying "Maria, no, I don't make a living off my short fiction, but I still make decent money off it."


Making some money is always nice.  But I was speaking mostly of myself--there is no way I want to allocate my time to writing enough shorts, submitting and/or publishing them in an attempt to make a living ... or close to living. At the moment I am willing to spend that time trying to do that with novel-length works because I think there is more demand for them. That doesn't mean people shouldn't write both, but for anyone who writes them BECAUSE they want to make money (as in throw them out there because the genre is popular or because they can be speedily written) I don't think that will work. They'll have to write a lot of them, constantly circulate them, and keep up with them in general--to the point where they could be writing a novel(s). In other words: It's not a fast ticket to anywhere.

In this business...I don't think there is a fast ticket.


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

I agree with other posters that what we're seeing are backlists or reprints of out-of-circulation books that have been re-edited or even re-written.

Some e-books are also shorter than traditionally published books. Novellas are very popular in the romance genre, for instance, whereas novellas are not often sold in traditional form unless they're written by an already-well-known author. That said, I've seen some shoddy indie ebooks - misspellings, poor formatting, and storylines that should never see the light of day. Just because it can be published doesn't mean it _should_ be published.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> In this business...I don't think there is a fast ticket.


Can we make t-shirts?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Elizabeth Black said:


> Just because it can be published doesn't mean it _should_ be published.


The best thing with self-publishing is that anyone can do it. The worst thing with self-publishing is that anyone can do it.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

Traditional publishing has many roadblocks set for the author.  After many years of publishing they know what quarters and months are most beneficial for sales and artificially adjust their release dates accordingly.  They time things so their best selling books don't cut into sales of other products. And they have production schedules to work with.

I know several traditional published authors that see multiple books published in a year. They usually have to utilize pseudonyms and/or multiple publishers. It makes it slightly harder for their regular fans to follow them.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

"Anyone else disturbed at the rate indie authors churn out books?"


It doesn’t disturb me, but it sure makes it unlikely that I will even give indie books a look. Especially as they don't seem to write traditional mysteries/science fiction.

Mike


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

tensen said:


> I know several traditional published authors that see multiple books published in a year. They usually have to utilize pseudonyms and/or multiple publishers. It makes it slightly harder for their regular fans to follow them.


That isn't always because of the publisher. Generally authors don't use the same name when writing in very different genres because of the bookstores and how they track sales and do ordering based on it.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Something to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cor%C3%ADn_Tellado



> María del Socorro Tellado López (April 25, 1927, El Franco, Asturias - April 11, 2009), known as Corín Tellado, was a prolific Spanish writer of romantic novels and photonovels that were best-sellers in several Spanish-language countries. She published more than 4,000 novels and sold more than 400-million books which have been translated into several languages. She is listed in the 1994 Guinness World Records as having sold the most books written in Spanish.


Her first book was published in 1946, and she died in 2009. If her over-4,000 novels were spaced evenly over her writing life, that would be an average of over 63 novels a year, a pace of over one a week.

The only thing I can say to that is...

Damn!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

swolf said:


> Something to consider:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cor%C3%ADn_Tellado
> 
> ...


And how many people are actually like that? Not many. So, remove the outliers (outlyers? outlayers?) on both sides (those who take 14 years to write a novel) and look at the average in between.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

jmiked said:


> "Anyone else disturbed at the rate indie authors churn out books?"
> 
> It doesn't disturb me, but it sure makes it unlikely that I will even give indie books a look. Especially as they don't seem to write traditional mysteries/science fiction.
> 
> Mike


Nancy Fulda had most of her stories published traditionally before "going indie." Check out "Dead Men Don't Cry." Some of her stories remind me of O. S. Card. Some are fun, some are hard-hitting.

Fatherly Love by B.A. Wallace is a pulp-like traditional mystery. I enjoyed it a lot: http://www.amazon.com/Fatherly-Love-ebook/dp/B003DQO2SE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312996633&sr=8-1

Haven't read yet, but appear to be traditional mystery style:

Kathy Bennett and Vicky Tyley

They are out there, but that doesn't mean they are easy to find.

Traditional sci/fi...hmm. I can think of a couple of fantasy or fantasy thrillers, but nothing more than Fulda is coming to me from the Indie world at the moment.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> And how many people are actually like that? Not many. So, remove the outliers (outlyers? outlayers?) on both sides (those who take 14 years to write a novel) and look at the average in between.


Well, she was obviously a freak of nature, but some are being criticized when their output is ten or more times less than her pace.

Each writer works at a different pace. Because one writer needs six months to a year to sit on a book before deeming it ready for publication, doesn't mean another writer who needs less time is doing something wrong.

As others have said here, the final judgement should be based upon the quality of the final product, not how long it took to make it.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

swolf said:


> As others have said here, the final judgement should be based upon the quality of the final product, not how long it took to make it.


As my reading time is limited, I've found skipping those "Wednesday Draft Done, Saturday It's Published" has greatly improved my ability to find well-written books.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> As my reading time is limited, I've found skipping those "Wednesday Draft Done, Saturday It's Published" has greatly improved my ability to find well-written books.


We all have to make those kinds of decisions, and we all have our own personal reasons for which books we choose to read, and which we choose to ignore.

However, I would think that's hard quantifier to determine, unless the author came out and told you that's what they did. And those instances would be so rare, it wouldn't be weeding out that many and saving you much time.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

swolf said:


> unless the author came out and told you that's what they did. And those instances would be so rare,


Clearly you don't follow a lot of self-published authors on Facebook and Twitter. It's amazing how many do this.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Clearly you don't follow a lot of self-published authors on Facebook and Twitter. It's amazing how many do this.


Clearly. And I stay away from the blogs too. Lots of folks yammering about nothing. So I'm going to have to take your word for it.

But yeah, I would tend to agree that if someone is publishing a novel a couple of days after finishing the final draft, it's probably a problem. A short story may be able to edited properly in that time frame, depending on the circumstances.

However, "Wednesday Draft Done, Saturday It's Published", is a specific situation, and just a part of what the OP is discussing. A self-pubbed author can publish three or four novels in a year without publishing that quickly after the first draft. And whether those books are well-written depends more on the skill of the author rather than the time it took to publish them.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> As my reading time is limited, I've found skipping those "Wednesday Draft Done, Saturday It's Published" has greatly improved my ability to find well-written books.


Agreed.

I mostly avoid reading indie stuff anyway. I'll never find time to even read all the classics and books from established author's in genres I like, so it's just not really worth my time to read much indie stuff as it's seldom on par with the cream of the crop stuff.

If they're worth their snuff (i.e. as good or better than the famous authors in the genre's I read) they'll become famous themselves and end up on my to read list eventually anyway.

They really only seems worth it for the really heavy readers who've read all the top mainstream books in the genre's they read, or people on limited budgets who need cheap books IMO.


----------



## NSRob (Jul 29, 2011)

If its a good story then its good a good story. Harry Patterson aka Jack Higgins used to write at least 2 or 3 novels a year under a variety of names. Partially it was because his publisher told him the public wouldn't accept more than one.


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

I love indie authors and fully support them putting out as many books as possible. Sure, some are good and some are bad, but big publishers produce the same.

btw....this is my first post on kindleboards!


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

BTW, this whole discussion is why I absolutely love the sample idea.  The sample is long enough that you can really dig in.

But yeah, a middle of the book sample, say just the middle ten pages would be outstanding as well.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

ThomasSandman said:


> I love indie authors and fully support them putting out as many books as possible. Sure, some are good and some are bad, but big publishers produce the same.
> 
> btw....this is my first post on kindleboards!


Welcome to the the kindleboards!

I know authors who are with a once-good epub who are pulling their books from there and either self-publishing or going with a new publisher. In either case, some of them have several titles that may all get re-published in a short period of time, and many of them have had top-selling books. So you just never know.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> I mostly avoid reading indie stuff anyway. I'll never find time to even read all the classics and books from established author's in genres I like, so it's just not really worth my time to read much indie stuff as it's seldom on par with the cream of the crop stuff.
> 
> If they're worth their snuff (i.e. as good or better than the famous authors in the genre's I read) they'll become famous themselves and end up on my to read list eventually anyway.
> 
> They really only seems worth it for the really heavy readers who've read all the top mainstream books in the genre's they read, or people on limited budgets who need cheap books IMO.


I respect your decision to not read indie, but to say that indie writers aren't on par with "cream of the crop stuff" is ignorant. Most of the indie stuff I've read is on par or better than the traditionally published stuff. "Indie" doesn't mean low-quality, don't-care-about-the-readers writing. Many indies (especially those on this board) do care and produce quality stuff, despite their decision to not go with a big publisher. You clearly haven't taken the time to read many indie books and it shows.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I wasn't meaning it that way really.  There are plenty of terrible books from the big publishers for sure!

When I say cream of the crop, I'm just meaning the best of the best in whatever genre.  I've not read any indie books yet that I enjoyed anywhere near as much as my favorite books in the genre's I read.  So I'd rather focus on reading the books I haven't read yet by writers like R.A. Salvatore or Robert Jordan etc. in the fantasy genre than take more chances on indie fantasy books as I was underwhelmed by the few I've tried and ended up feeling that I should have just spent that time on the cream of the crop fantasy series I haven't got around to reading yet.  But I'll freely admit that I haven't read much, so I'm far from an expert on the subject of indie books.

All I'm really saying is that as someone that reads 2-4 books most months, I can't really be bothered to go taking chances on indie books when there is so much great stuff out their from big time authors, classic authors etc. that I don't have time to read already.  Better to read that stuff that I'm almost sure to love in the genres I like, than to take a risk on an indie book and end up feeling like I wasted time that I could have used on something else--which has been my experience thus far with indie stuff.

And like I said, I figure that those who write truly outstanding indie books will get discovered and hit the big time and end up on my to read list anyway.  Thus I let the market and critics separate the wheat from the chaff for more more or less!   Those who read a ton more than I do can take more risks and put more effort into discovering new things on their own since they've mostly read all the top mainstream works in the genre's they read.

I'm the same with music.  I know there's lots of great indie stuff out there, but if it doesn't make it on the radio, or into my Pandora streams etc. I'm not going to find it as I just don't have the time or interest to go digging for new stuff on my own.  I work pretty long hours and just want to sit down with my hobbies in my free time and delve into something I know I'm almost guaranteed to love rather than taking a risk on something new and ending up in a sour mood from wasting my precious free time if I end up not liking it.

If something is in a genre I like, sells a lot of copies, and gets good reviews from both critics and customers, I can be pretty sure I'll love it.  So I usually let those kind of things filter movies, music, books and video games and just use that to choose the "cream of the crop" to make sure I'm only devoting my free time to the best of the best in the genre's I love.  If I miss some great indie stuff, so be it.  There's more mainstream stuff than I can keep up with anyway! 

In any case, that's all I meant really.  Just that I can't be bothered sorting through indie books (or all mainstream books) and just stick with the top reviewed best selling type books in the genre's I read since that's already filtered to the cream of the crop by both reviews and selling big.

I meant no offense to any indie writers, and didn't mean to imply that indie books can't be outstanding.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

An awful lot of authors are coventionally published and have gone 'indie' too. I'm constantly running across writers who are with the better small presses and have uploaded stuff onto Kindle into the bargain, the thinking being, obviously, "Why not -- what do I have to lose?" So the distinction between 'indie' authors and the other type is really very grey and even blurred.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tony Richards said:


> An awful lot of authors are coventionally published and have gone 'indie' too. I'm constantly running across writers who are with the better small presses and have uploaded stuff onto Kindle into the bargain, the thinking being, obviously, "Why not -- what do I have to lose?" So the distinction between 'indie' authors and the other type is really very grey and even blurred.


Very true. I don't care where something is published. I just tend to stick to books in genres I read that have:

1) Sold a lot.
2) Have very positive reviews from critics and customers

I almost never pick a book I end up disliking, so it works for me. The only reason I don't read a lot of indie stuff is most of it just doesn't pop up on my radar using that criteria--at least the first anyway, and the critics part of the second.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

samanthawarren said:


> I respect your decision to not read indie, but to say that indie writers aren't on par with "cream of the crop stuff" is ignorant. Most of the indie stuff I've read is on par or better than the traditionally published stuff. "Indie" doesn't mean low-quality, don't-care-about-the-readers writing. Many indies (especially those on this board) do care and produce quality stuff, despite their decision to not go with a big publisher. You clearly haven't taken the time to read many indie books and it shows.


How many indie books do readers need to read before they've hit the quota where they can say they're no longer considered ignorant? It seems a-ok for folks here to say that they aren't interested in reading trade publisher books. So, why isn't it ok for a reader to say they aren't interested in indie books?

God forbid someone honestly express their opinion


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I get what Mooshie78 is saying.  There is nothing like having a tried and true favorite author hoarded away for that weekend when you finally have time to read.  THAT is what reading is all about.  And yes, we do have to find new authors because sometimes we're out of tried and true, but hey, Mooshie has a method that works.  Just like the gates are open for writers to publish (at least at the moment, thankfully!), they are open for readers too.  The choices are endless. Grab what you want.  None of us will ever have time to find and read every gem out there.

I read a mix of trad and indies.  I sort through a lot of samples of both when looking for a new author.  I'm picky.  I go by recs from friends and sometimes even with that, the books are hit/miss.  It's just part of the reading experience.

And if a trad author or indie author puts out too much too fast, I'm not going to be able to read it all--I don't even have time to *notice* if they're pushing books out the door every month.  I don't get the opportunity to look all that often and there are only a handful that I can keep up with.  

Great topic.  I've really enjoyed the discussion.


----------



## MoonlitDreams (Apr 15, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> If something is in a genre I like, sells a lot of copies, and gets good reviews from both critics and customers, I can be pretty sure I'll love it. So I usually let those kind of things filter movies, music, books and video games and just use that to choose the "cream of the crop" to make sure I'm only devoting my free time to the best of the best in the genre's I love. If I miss some great indie stuff, so be it. There's more mainstream stuff than I can keep up with anyway!


I'm sorry, I couldn't let this go. I could never imagine being "that person" who allows everyone else to tell them what's good. More power to you for choosing your entertainment like that, but when I think of all the books, music, and movies I would have missed out on if I had listened to the crowd (or been scared off by the lack of a crowd) my life would be amazingly dull! I was reading Indie books long before I realized what they were and I have to tell you, there are duds out there (as there are with mainstream books) but there are some amazing books out there as well.


----------



## ChesterCampbell (Apr 3, 2009)

I know several mystery writers whose experience was similar to mine. My first published novel was the eighth I wrote. Manuscripts are rejected for a variety of reasons, many having nothing to do with the quality of the writing. Agents sent me letters from editors who had just published a similar story, or it didn't fit in with the type of novel they were publishing. They say they like the writing but it just doesn't work for them. This is a very subjective business. Although I have a new book just out, I'm getting ready to revised a couple of the old manuscripts, get them edited again and put them up on the Kindle. To the casual reader, it may look like I wrote three books in one year. Hardly


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Just to let y'all know I just read a "cream of the crop" book, _Gambit_ by Rex Stout. It was just reissued as an ebook. In the middle of it, they scanned an ad for leather bound Agatha Christie books. I'm pretty sure that was an error since they also included a scan of the postcard they wanted me to send in. Guess all the proofreaders from Random House/Bantam missed those several pages. Loc 1803-1840.

Oh, and by the way, Amazon says they can't do anything about it because it's not a formatting error.

You know, I can take the occasional error from indies and trad pubbed books, but this one is way beyond my tolerance level.


----------



## Amera (May 22, 2011)

All I know is that if I could churn out 8 books a year, I'd finally be able to look those monkeys with typewriters in the eye. Smug little jerks.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I haven't read all the posts yet because, well, there are 5 pages worth but I did read the first two pages and I agree with a lot of people here. 
I read A LOT of Indie authors, in fact I make a point of featuring a new one every week on my blog because I fully support them, are some of them better than others? 
Absolutely! 
Is it because they churn out multiple books per year? Absolutely not!  Some writers are just better than others whether they happen to be Indie or traditionally published authors. And not every writer, Indie or otherwise, is going to appeal to everyone.

There are a ton of published authors out there that churn out multiple books per year that have excellent books, J.D. Robb/Nora Roberts, Richelle Mead, Chloe Neill and Jeanine Frost come to mind. Is their work any less because they can put out more than one book a year? Nope, not a chance. Are their books flawless because they have an editor working for them? Nope, not always. 

I think a good writer is a good writer period. I am willing to overlook a few editing errors if the writing is fantastic, the plot feasible and well formed and the characters great. 

You said you wanted examples of good Indie writers? Look around the boards, they are filled with them.

If you don't want to "waste" money, then use the sample feature first before you buy, in fact, I recommend you do that before trying out any new author. You can usually tell within the first chapter or two if the editing is sufficient to your taste and if you are going to like the book/author's writing style.


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

I've written 16 novels, but had only published two of them before I discovered indie publishing. So by the end of the year I'll have ten books out. Which looks like I can write really fast, but there was ten years of work that went into it.


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm the original poster, and I'm thankful for the multiple perspectives people have offered in this thread 

I must say what made me disturbed about the speed of writing has more to do with my suspicion that many indies are "churning" for the sole purpose of making a quick buck, without regard to quality.

I don't factor in backlist titles. It's easy enough to check if a title or author has previously been traditionally published by reading the description. Most authors mention it. 

As a reader I believe the proliferation of shoddy indie books does dilute the market. It's harder to find the perfect indie book when it's drowned out by the deluge of churned works that shouldn't have seen the light of day. And reviews aren't even the more-or-less accurate gauge they once were, as I suspect many of review-swapping or inducing family and friends to post glowing 5 star reviews.

Majority of manuscripts are rejected by agents and publishers for good reason.

I am more likely to check out a previously published author with a dozen books in his portfolio than an unknown with 8 novels out. A previously published author guarantees that his work meets the minimum requirements for readability, professionalism, and appeal. These are all EXPECTED from a professional book. With indie work there is no guarantee. The odds are against the indie author before I even CONSIDER sampling the work. Why should I waste valuable time sampling something with a lower-than-average chance of meeting the requirements?

As mentioned by a previous poster, it's takes much less time and effort to find a good traditionally published book.  With so many indie authors gaming the system, it gets harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. If I were a casual reader without a morbid interest in this emerging market, I wouldn't even care to look.

Is there a good blog/site that specializes in objective reviews and recommendations of indie books? (If it's not allowed to post links here, feel free to PM me)


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> When I say cream of the crop, I'm just meaning the best of the best in whatever genre. I've not read any indie books yet that I enjoyed anywhere near as much as my favorite books in the genre's I read. So I'd rather focus on reading the books I haven't read yet by writers like R.A. Salvatore or Robert Jordan etc. in the fantasy genre than take more chances on indie fantasy books as I was underwhelmed by the few I've tried and ended up feeling that I should have just spent that time on the cream of the crop fantasy series I haven't got around to reading yet. But I'll freely admit that I haven't read much, so I'm far from an expert on the subject of indie books.
> 
> .


This ^^^, except with my favorite authors/genres 

I have too many books waiting that I can be much more assured that I'll enjoy and are written at the level of quality I expect. I dont have much time to take risks.


----------



## Andrew Davis (Aug 5, 2011)

I think a more detailed look at the nature of the question and the context within which it was stated will provide an explanation that should work for just about everyone.

First of all, there's an obvious qualification that must be made before this question can even be properly addressed: To which indie authors does the question apply? 

Since the question suggests being “disturbed” by writers who “churn out books,” I think we may assume that the author of the question refers to “writers who churn out books of questionable quality,” since churning out books of exceptional quality would appear to not be a problem for anyone, including the question’s author.

Given that clarification, there’s no reason for anyone to be disturbed about books being churned out in the indie market for three reasons: 
1. The minimal nature of quality control in the indie market provides fertile ground for the growth of questionable work.
2. Questionable work will always be a part of minimal literary quality control.
3. The solution has not yet been implemented in the indie market. 

Number three to follow.

The question begs refinement: Are indie writers who churn churning out excellent work, good work, mediocre work, or bad work?  The answer is “all of the above.”  These levels of work are not only being “churned” out; they are being “squeezed” out as well.  There are plenty of single-entry writers who produce questionable work.  

Since both single-entry as well as multiple-entry writers produce questionable work, is “churning” the problem, here?  Perhaps it’s simply questionable work that’s the problem, regardless of whether it’s churned or not.  Within this framework, “churning” is not a prerequisite for questionable work.

Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of "successful" big-time writers out there in paper who churn out the work and can't write as well as a lot of indies on the Kindle platform.  There are a lot of indies on the Kindle platform who are slammin’ good writers.  

So, is the indie market hopelessly doomed to life in the literary getto?  Not at all.  It’s a vibrant, energetic, and dynamic evolving force to be reckoned with that is destined to take over publishing as we know it and never fire a shot in the process.  

As long as literary quality control in the indie marketplace remains relatively minimal, there will always be an abundance of questionable work available.  That’s simple the nature of minimal control, regardless of its context.  

However, in the electronic indie marketplace, reader reviews, sales, returns, posts, education, and other such public input act as a sort of surrogate quality control over indie market content.  In the long run, all of these variables will weed out the questionable work for the most part, and the indie market will thrive.  

So, in the end, what does it matter who "churns" out books?  It doesn't matter if indie writers churn out books.  The reader makes the determination whether they make it or not.  The real, test is exactly that: Do people like your work. That is all that matters, whether you churn them out or not.

The solution to the problem of questionable literary content in the indie market is the introduction of what I like to call “electronic Pubstores.”  That is, a hybrid of traditional and electronic publisher mentality that publishes and distributes electronic indie work under the degree of quality control generally present in the traditional publishing industry.

Such  Pubstores would be the equivalent of---OK, listen up, Kindle.  I’ll give you and the world this one free and see who gets it done first---Kindle simply deciding to hire the editors and other quality control people in the traditional publishing industry that Kindle is putting out of work to exercise their talents for Kindle.  Unless Kindle becomes such a “Pubstore,” I believe that’s the route that Kindle will force traditional publishers to take---if the old school has sense enough to do it. 

So, questionable books being churned out in the indie market?  Of course.  It’s simply the nature of the animal.  You cannot change a leopard’s spots, so the question becomes a moot point in the indie world until the Pubstore becomes a reality.  Then, anyone who wants a more refined selection of electronic books made of quality steel that have been through the publishing fire and tempered by it’s heat will have another option.  

In fact, I see this option developing over time and garnering an ever-increasing market share in the indie market unless Kindle and other such “open” markets place more control over the content they offer the public and grab the reins before the horse gallops.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

samanthawarren said:


> I respect your decision to not read indie, but to say that indie writers aren't on par with "cream of the crop stuff" is ignorant. Most of the indie stuff I've read is on par or better than the traditionally published stuff. "Indie" doesn't mean low-quality, don't-care-about-the-readers writing. Many indies (especially those on this board) do care and produce quality stuff, despite their decision to not go with a big publisher. You clearly haven't taken the time to read many indie books and it shows.


Well, I have sampled a bit of indie, small pub, and individually published stuff and I have found a larger percentage of it lacking. And I'm including hardcopy books here too, as I've read many of those from small/indiv publishers too.

So that is why I wrote my initial post about investing in professional editors (that do more than look for typos and grammar problems). I never meant to imply that they didnt care or were careless or just out for a buck...I'm saying that good writing is hard, takes discipline, time and experience, and still (IMO) usually needs good editing.

It's not that there arent great indie e-books out there, it's that it's hard to sift thru the chaff to find the good stuff.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Andrew Davis said:


> Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of "successful" big-time writers out there in paper who churn out the work and can't write as well as a lot of indies on the Kindle platform. There are a lot of indies on the Kindle platform who are slammin' good writers.


Actually, I think that this leads to the essential question of the thread.....and needs to be supported. Because I do question it and would like some solid examples. This is what people would _LIKE _ to be true, to be the rule. If it's true, there should be many.

But our experiences so far say that it's.....unproven as yet in terms of ratio.

Or maybe we just need more experiences...as I wrote, sometimes I just dont have the time to take the chances.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

WriterCTaylor said:


> Rightly or wrongly, I have avoided indie authors with so many books out in a short period of time. I know what people are saying about back catalogues etc, but I still wonder. I know there are some wonderful indie authors out there and I buy as many as I can, but I do get suspicious when I am confronted with fifteen books released in two years. If someone can set me straight on a prolific indie author, I would be happy to buy a book to see.


If I recall, Amanda Hocking published 8 or 9 e-books in a roughly short period of time. She states in her blog that she writes really fast, but I haven't read any of her books yet, so I can't comment on quality.

Debra


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Well, I have sampled a bit of indie, small pub, and individually published stuff and I have found a larger percentage of it lacking. And I'm including hardcopy books here too, as I've read many of those from small/indiv publishers too.
> 
> So that is why I wrote my initial post about investing in professional editors (that do more than look for typos and grammar problems). I never meant to imply that they didnt care or were careless or just out for a buck...I'm saying that good writing is hard, takes discipline, time and experience, and still (IMO) usually needs good editing.
> 
> It's not that there arent great indie e-books out there, it's that it's hard to sift thru the chaff to find the good stuff.


I agree with your comments. Many indie authors I've chatted with on forums care about their work, but I have to say that I have a friend who is a professional editor, and she tells me that a large number of writers want her to edit their books before the books are actually ready--the work needs a couple of more rewrites. This seems to be a difficult thing for writers to get a handle on; when is your book truly ready for the final edit? Others want my friend to help them point out the flaws, but when she does so, they don't actually want to do the work. They want her to complete the changes for them, which isn't her job. Writing is hard work, and not everyone wants to put in the time.


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

*@Andrew Davis: * Thank you for expressing my question (and its implications) eloquently  I agree with all you said. And I for one am looking forward to the day an "PubStore" comes out. As a reader I appreciate the work agents/editors/publishers do to filter out promising work from the mediocre ones. Even if they make mistakes sometimes.

Half my wish has already been fulfilled 

*Kindle Indie Bookstore * : http://www.amazon.com/kindleindiebooks


----------



## 25803 (Oct 24, 2010)

I agree that it can be problematic to filter out the good books from the poor, whether traditionally published or indie published.

Since I straddle both lines, I'm aware of authors who write great books really, really quickly.  One mega NYT bestseller told me she writes a complete book in 2 weeks, but tells her editor it takes 4 (I think she was worried the editor would think it couldn't be good if she wrote it that quickly).  A big six editor told me their house doesn't like to publish books by the same author too closely together because readers might perceive it as lesser quality.  Several authors have told me they've left a publishing house because they were only being copy edited and not properly edited these days, or were hiring their own editors before turning in their books. 

More and more bestselling authors are moving to indie publishing and not just for their backlist books.  They had books they'd written but hadn't sold (due to marketing reasons) or books they wanted to write that didn't fit into a marketing slot.  Others have found that after releasing their backlist they enjoyed having control over their own works (for instance, a friend had a secondary character turned into a rodent by her editor) and now have a foot in both camps.  Others have decided to go pure indie.  Many of your favorite name brand authors are at this moment considering or making plans to go indie if they haven't already.

I've read some fabulous indie books -- and the only reason I can see they weren't traditionally published was because the books didn't fit into a neat marketing slot.  I've also read some indie books that aren't equal to the quality I see in contests I judge for unpublished writers.  These lesser quality books were not from the authors I see posting regularly on the KB.  I love the fact that KB authors as a whole strive for quality and they do a wonderful job of influencing the newer authors to do the same  

I'd like to recommend Red Adept Reviews as an excellent source for great reviews of both indie and traditionally published books.


----------



## Nancy Fulda (Apr 24, 2011)

One factor in traditional publishing is that the fast writers often write under two or three separate pseudonyms in several different genres. So even though they're churning out six books a year, only one book per year will be published under any given pseudonym.

Another factor: Traditionally-published writers seldom earn enough money to quit their day job even if the book is selling decently. So they're writing evenings and weekends and at 5:00 AM, whenever they can squeeze in the time. Indie authors earn a higher percentage on each sale, and they don't have to wonder whether a publisher will accept their next book. This gives them more confidence to quit the jay job early and produce books at a faster rate.

Third factor: Many traditional authors would be producing faster if the bureaucratic climate was conducive to it. But traditional publishing is glacially slow. Submission dates and production timetables are laid out years in advance, and books often get delayed through no fault of the author. David Walton's novel _Quintessence_ was accepted for publication um... I think about a year ago and Tor originally told him it would come out this summer. But the publishing timeline got shuffled around and it's now scheduled for 2012.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

marimorimo said:


> I'm the original poster, and I'm thankful for the multiple perspectives people have offered in this thread
> 
> Is there a good blog/site that specializes in objective reviews and recommendations of indie books? (If it's not allowed to post links here, feel free to PM me)


GREAT question. There are two blogs that review almost exclusively Indie material that I know of:

Red Adept Reviews: http://redadeptreviews.com/ -- Red has several reviewers on her team, so there's a bunch of different genres.

Grace Krispy: http://www.gracekrispy.com/ --she does all her own reviews and does an astounding job; thorough, to the point, doesn't pull punches. She reviews mysteries/cozies/thrillers, some fantasy, some urban fantasy...women's fiction...can't think if she reviews romance off the top of my head.

I think this blog does only indies and I've only just started following it so I can't speak to the overall quality of it yet:

http://booksandpals.blogspot.com/

Some blogs who mix it up:

http://www.ebookworm.us/ Reviews Science Fiction and fantasy (not necessarily indie, but I know he has done some.)

www.DailyCheapReads.com carries some reviews, both indie and trad--you'll need to look for the tags to find the reviews as she's really a bargain finding site.

http://blog.booksontheknob.org/ -- Reviews mostly trad and only on occasion. You'll need to search for reviews by tag as well. She doesn't do a lot of reviews, but worth a look.

Full disclosure: Some of the above blogs have reviewed my work and at least one of them has carried reviews I've written (I was not paid to write any reviews.)

If you tell me the genre you read, I can probably list more. 

Thanks for starting such a great thread!


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

Thank you very much for the additional input and links to review sites


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

I wish other people would write so fast LOL. It makes me feel like a sloth by comparison, when I can only produce a book in about two years. But as others have said, the rate of production rests on so many variables that there is no way for anyone to know what the author's rate of production really is. And for some authors, writing fast doesn't mean writing poorly. Some are just gifted storytellers.

It takes me forever to clean up a manuscript, make the characters likeable, fix the pacing (because I always start out slow and even in my trad published books, that's always been a problem for me) etc, so that it's ready to even go to an editor. But others don't have issues like that and they just whip those babies out. And they're cute, cuddly, fat and sassy little babies, too. Just what the market ordered.

So...I don't think you can make any assumptions just because of a perceived "speed". How do you know if they were written in 4 days or 4 years? They may have been backlist and all republished within a month of each other, making them look like they were produced in 4 weeks when the reality is quite different.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

MLPMom said:


> I haven't read all the posts yet because, well, there are 5 pages worth but I did read the first two pages and I agree with a lot of people here.
> I read A LOT of Indie authors, in fact I make a point of featuring a new one every week on my blog because I fully support them, are some of them better than others?
> Absolutely!
> Is it because they churn out multiple books per year? Absolutely not! Some writers are just better than others whether they happen to be Indie or traditionally published authors. And not every writer, Indie or otherwise, is going to appeal to everyone.
> ...


Thanks Mlpmom. Your support helps us exist. 

And I should have mentioned MLPMOM and her reviews earlier. I have followed her reviews on goodreads for a long time and only recently came across her blog.

http://myguiltyobsession.blogspot.com/

She reads a little bit of everything, urban fantasy, historical romance...YA--the young adult were the first ones to catch my attention for whatever reason.

Full Disclosure: To the best of my knowledge, MLPmom has not reviewed any of my books. I could be wrong; I haven't checked!

Maria


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Amy's absolutely right about the backlist. Almost everything I've put on Kindle has appeared somewhere before ... and there's more coming.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

MoonlitDreams said:


> I'm sorry, I couldn't let this go. I could never imagine being "that person" who allows everyone else to tell them what's good. More power to you for choosing your entertainment like that, but when I think of all the books, music, and movies I would have missed out on if I had listened to the crowd (or been scared off by the lack of a crowd) my life would be amazingly dull! I was reading Indie books long before I realized what they were and I have to tell you, there are duds out there (as there are with mainstream books) but there are some amazing books out there as well.


I do get that.

And I do put a lot more effort into finding movies outside the mainstream as movies are my main hobby.

Books and music--the examples I used--are much more casual hobbies for me. I pretty much only read--leisure reading of novels anyway--30-60 minutes at night before sleeping. So I'm just getting through around 2-4 books a month. Similarly, for music it's pretty much just background music while driving or working out or working in the office these days.

I'm just not passionate enough about those hobbies to really take the effort to dig around and find obscure stuff I might like. Just sticking to the mainstream stuff I like works for me. And it's not letting others tell me what to like. There's plenty of popular stuff I can't stand. It's just picking out the things that match my tastes from the mainstream stuff that's easy to find out about, easy to find reviews of etc.

Whereas with movies I'm much more passionate about them and do watch a lot more than just the big Hollywood movies and watch a good bit of indie films, foreign films, documentaries etc. So I certainly understand that most here are passionate about books like that and thus love spending the time exploring the indie book scene and discovering things, just like I do for movies.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Actually, I think that this leads to the essential question of the thread.....and needs to be supported. Because I do question it and would like some solid examples. This is what people would _LIKE _ to be true, to be the rule. If it's true, there should be many.
> 
> But our experiences so far say that it's.....unproven as yet in terms of ratio.
> 
> Or maybe we just need more experiences...as I wrote, sometimes I just dont have the time to take the chances.


This is a tough one for me, because some of it is so dependent on what a person likes as a reader--it's very subjective. I'm also not sure I disagree with you. I suspect that the ratio of "poorer quality" does lean toward the indie books outpacing traditional books. BUT, I cannot say that for certain because even though I sample a lot, I've never kept track of whether I dump indie books more often than trad books.

Here are a few examples from trad publishers where I felt the quality fell off:

I used to LOVE Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quick (same author). The more popular she became (and she is VERY popular) the less I liked her work. Now, maybe I outgrew it. But it seemed to me that the plots were thinner and thinner. I hate throwing stones at any author because even "churning" out books is a lot of work. But early days, she wrote as Krentz. Then added the Amanda Quick books (about one a year). Then there were multiple books under each name...I think for a while she even wrote under a third name.

I honestly feel this way about Nora Roberts--she churns them out. I think her early J.D. Robb were SUCH a breath of fresh air. They became popular and now she writes quite a number of them. I would say that overall I think the quality of the Robb books holds up better...but IMO, there was some churning going on with the Nora Roberts stuff--which may be why she started something completely different in the first place.

Patterson. Then again, I hear he doesn't write them all so perhaps that isn't a fair one.

There are some others, but I feel in naming them I'd be throwing stones (they are not best sellers and again, subjective!)

IMO, it's very difficult for any author to keep writing a series and keep it fresh. Even if they aren't putting out books quickly, I think quality can become more difficult to achieve without changing things up.

Now--ALL that said, LATELY, I have found a number of books in the UF area--from trad publishers--falling off in quality. Am I tired of the genre? I don't think that is it. I don't know if they rush these things to market or if they start taking "fringe plots" or what. My favorite authors are still putting out about 1 book a year and I'm finding the quality is there. But as I look further out in the genre...shrug. I'm taking about half the books out of my cart after sampling. These are by and large traditional published books. One in particular that I can think of is EXTREMELY popular. Didn't do a thing for me and the author does put them out at a seemingly lightning pace.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MariaES, I see your point & notice it in mainstream authors too, but generally with them I notice the shortcomings in the stories, details, lack of imagination or crispness, etc.....not the quality of their writing....if you see the distinction I'm making? Of course it's not black & white & they're also not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

9MMare said:


> MariaES, I see your point & notice it in mainstream authors too, but generally with them I notice the shortcomings in the stories, details, lack of imagination or crispness, etc.....not the quality of their writing....if you see the distinction I'm making? Of course it's not black & white & they're also not mutually exclusive.


This is something I've tried to make, but folks seem to get really offended.

I might not *like* a lot of mainstream publisher offerings, but rarely have I questioned the skill or quality of the authors. With self-published works, I often am rejecting a book because the quality isn't there. Even the ones who were "edited" (who, sadly, I'm noticing too many are being edited by people with no fiction editing experience, no experience with content editing, or edited by folks touting getting full reads aka rejections by agents and, thus, consider themselves skilled enough to edit others).

I know people say sample and all that. But, I worked as a slush reader for a publisher. I have no interest, at all, in being a slush reader in my spare time. So, I generally do not read indie authors who are unknown to me. If I see blog reviews (not on Amazon - I don't trust them anymore), then I'll sample and see. Or, perhaps I follow someone's blog and see them mention another author. Then, I'll go check it out. I've had a much better experience reading overall with that. Now, I no longer feel like I'm wasting my money.


----------



## TracyRozzlynn (Jun 15, 2011)

I've been worried about appearing to churn out my books too quickly. 

My first novel was released in May. Then, on July 13th I released my second novel and my third will be released in September. However, my first novel was completed over a year ago. I let it sit on the back burner and started my second and third novel. Periodically, I would re-read the book with a fresh set of eyes and make changes. I've done the same thing with my other novels. 

Being a new indie author I made some mistakes. At first I tried to self edit - big mistake. I discovered that when you've re-read 80,000 words enough times, your mind starts to see what it thinks should be there, and not what is there. At one point I had typed in the name Mary instead of Molly but I never caught the error. Then I hired someone to edit that offered an affordable price. They caught a lot, but the book was still filled with little typos - not enough to have my novel slammed for it, but enough have a few readers mentioned it in their review. So I had a second edit done. Since then I have not received any feedback about typos. 

I think there will always be writers who rush to publish their books too quickly. The reviews they receive on Amazon, Goodreads and Librarything will help both the authors and readers figure out which ones are worth reading. Plus, the authors who care about the quality of their work will go back and correct the editing mistakes that reviews point out.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> MariaES, I see your point & notice it in mainstream authors too, but generally with them I notice the shortcomings in the stories, details, lack of imagination or crispness, etc.....not the quality of their writing....if you see the distinction I'm making? Of course it's not black & white & they're also not mutually exclusive.


Oh--I guess I see what you mean. But...I was actually referring to shortcomings in the story--simplified plots, lack of imagination. Most of the books were edited (although I can think of a Charlaine Harris book that was poorly edited and that bugged me to no end--along with some weirder books as the Sookie books went along, but that's another issue.) Wait! Too many issues! My head will explode!

Okay, so for ME, I can even tolerate a typo or 6. But give me FULL PLOT and completely enthralling story--that to me IS the quality of the writing (I realize that phrase quality can differ from person to person).

Also keeping in mind that when I buy a trad book, it's usually 8 or 9 dollars--so I'm already feeling like I better get an awesome story. It's really...annoying to find an author who wasn't able to take the time or didn't take the time to give me the FULL book I expect. And I don't mean that the storyline didn't go where I expected--I mean that after reading some authors for years...the book starts to feel like, "wash, rinse, repeat." Sad to say (don't hit me!) that the Janet Evanovich series got that way for me. Her inbetween books felt especially like "churning" where she put out cute novellas that really weren't all that much story. The first one was a holiday book and it was okay. I got it from the library and it was cute and entertaining, but it wasn't exactly a full book. Instead of character development, it was more like a sit-com issue. Nothing wrong with that and it was edited just fine...but, not really what I'd call a novel and not something I want to pay 8 bucks for so I didn't and I don't.

I don't think she purposely churns them out, but there is such high demand, I'm guessing her publisher says, "Hey give me something, anything, and we'll sell it." I also think that the decision was made a long time ago to not "end" the story--ie instead of it following a natural arc and Stephanie choosing one man or another, the series contrived to continue for marketing reasons not for the storyline or the real creativity. That constitutes a quality issue FOR ME because not only did the characters get a bit ridiculous, the plots on some of the "mysteries" were lacking.  But I understand it and I generally just read something else.

(Rachel Caine's Morganville Vamp series comes to mind as one that TO ME continued along some unnatural storylines...I'm not sure I'd say the quality suffered as far as the individual books...so scratch that. I don't think it counts. I just didn't like where the story was evolving.)

Okay, compare that to indie authors. I haven't actually READ any full series by indie authors. I've read more than one book by an indie author and enjoyed them, but haven't done any long fantasy sagas to be able to say whether it holds together or becomes a churning type of thing. But like any other book I pick up--it either makes it past the 30 pages or it doesn't.

I actually prefer stand alones these days rather than series--and that goes for trad or indie. Some of that is simply due to less time to read.

I can think of one indie/small published author who I do return to just as I do my favorite trad authors...hmm. Make that two. And a third comes to mind as someone I'd like to read more of. But either the authors haven't put out enough books yet or I haven't been able to catch up and read them all--so I can't say whether the quality suffers over time or not.

I will agree: It is time consuming to sort through books. I spend an inordinate amount of time putting in an order, reorganizing my wish list--it's ridiculous. Seriously. I'm stupid that way.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I know people say sample and all that. But, I worked as a slush reader for a publisher. I have no interest, at all, in being a slush reader in my spare time. So, I generally do not read indie authors who are unknown to me. If I see blog reviews (not on Amazon - I don't trust them anymore), then I'll sample and see. Or, perhaps I follow someone's blog and see them mention another author. Then, I'll go check it out. I've had a much better experience reading overall with that. Now, I no longer feel like I'm wasting my money.


I agree 100% with this. If I read an indie book, it's because I've seen good reviews of it in various places, lots of recommendations in forums like this one etc.

Then I'll get the sample and check it out. As you put it, I don't have any interest (or the free time) to be slush reader and waste a bunch of time sampling stuff I end up not liking when I could have spent that precious free time on something good that I enjoy.

Again, it's not letting other people decide what I read as someone else implied above. It's using reviews and impressions to separate some of the wheat from the chaff and narrowing down the pool of books to check out in the genres I read. I don't have the time, interest or patience to sample everything in the genres I read, so using reviews and recommendations is a useful way to try see what seems to be "the cream of the crop" and then I can get the samples of those books and check them out for myself.


----------



## Amyshojai (May 3, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> GREAT question. There are two blogs that review almost exclusively Indie material that I know of: . . .


Wow, if it's okay I will share these links on my blog next week on the "Tuesday Tips" for folks wanting to find good reads. This is gold!

To date, my Ebook/indy publishing has been revisions and re-releases of my backlist. But even those have had their share of typos (how embarrassing! found another one today...). When my fiction launches, that will be a whole new experience of course.

I have many traditionally pub'd friends who are under contract to write X-number of books a year to satisfy their readership and/or editorial calendars. One friend writes 2 series, for a total of (I think) 5 novels a year. She has no other life, LOL! To date her work hasn't suffered but I could see how it could when urged to do more more more.

The mantra of "indy" authors that "more books sell more books" cracks that virtual whip (or in my case, creates snapping fangs close to my heels). So there's always that rush to get that next title finished and move up the ladder with yet another book.

I'm not sure of the answer. I rely on word of mouth here, what my friends recommend, and also try to support folks who support me. With my day-job requiring dozens of nonfiction articles/columns each month I simply don't have time to search for reviews, either. When I read, I want to loose myself in the book and enjoy and if it's too much "work" to vet things first, I just ain't a-gonna do it.

My several cents. *s*


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Amyshojai said:


> Wow, if it's okay I will share these links on my blog next week on the "Tuesday Tips" for folks wanting to find good reads. This is gold!
> 
> To date, my Ebook/indy publishing has been revisions and re-releases of my backlist. But even those have had their share of typos (how embarrassing! found another one today...). When my fiction launches, that will be a whole new experience of course.
> 
> ...


Amy, I'm sure it's more than okay to share any of those links. If you want more of a description on any of them, let me know. Both of those sites have good descriptions on the blogs too.

I do read books based on reviews--but generally of sites I've followed for a while so I know that the reviewer taste matches mine. I've found a lot of them through Goodreads.

I have wasted entire afternoons starting books and sampling and moving on. This did not happen before Kindle. I didn't have the VOLUME of books at my fingertips. Instead of browsing through a bookstore for 2 hours and coming home with 4 books, I browse through samples until I'm captured and just keep reading...


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> I have wasted entire afternoons starting books and sampling and moving on. This did not happen before Kindle. I didn't have the VOLUME of books at my fingertips. Instead of browsing through a bookstore for 2 hours and coming home with 4 books, I browse through samples until I'm captured and just keep reading...


Maria, I've read your earlier posts and I expect you'll agree with this.... That search you wrote about is a _good_ thing, right? Isn't the search sort of a wash, in terms of searching bookstores versus searching online samples? Isn't the addition of more books really just a plus given that balance, since it's more sandy beaches where treasure can be dug out?

And doesn't this discussion really come down to that one point: whether Big Pub or "indie," there may be flaws in what's put out there and how it's done, and there will be good books and there will be bad, and we have to search to find them, but it's all about finding a story that resonates with you because of its characters or plot or settings or simply the way someone has put their words together.

We all just like books. And to me, this is one more way to find those books.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I have a hard drive full of writing! And much of that is varying genres, spanning about fifteen years! Also, most of it isn't publishable. What most people forget is that a writer is very similar to a musician. In order to write well, we must practice! And how do we practice? By writing of course. When I learned about publishing on Kindle, I dusted off a ton of old stuff and started cleaning it up. So I was able to publish seven works (5 short stories and two novellas) pretty easily. 

Also, the old pulp writers of the 50's and 60's would fit in wonderfully nowadays. Those guys churned out stories at breakneck speed! The last thing to consider is that publishing companies slow down a writer. Do away with the publisher and a writer is free to produce, at any rate she feels comfortable with.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Patrick Reinken said:


> Maria, I've read your earlier posts and I expect you'll agree with this.... That search you wrote about is a _good_ thing, right? Isn't the search sort of a wash, in terms of searching bookstores versus searching online samples? Isn't the addition of more books really just a plus given that balance, since it's more sandy beaches where treasure can be dug out?
> 
> And doesn't this discussion really come down to that one point: whether Big Pub or "indie," there may be flaws in what's put out there and how it's done, and there will be good books and there will be bad, and we have to search to find them, but it's all about finding a story that resonates with you because of its characters or plot or settings or simply the way someone has put their words together.
> 
> We all just like books. And to me, this is one more way to find those books.


Well, yes and no. I get VERY frustrated when I spend an entire afternoon sampling and nothing grabs me. Some of that is that I get more disenchanted as I go along and thus crabbier and woe to the author who is book 5 on the sampling list because by then you'd better be GOLDEN in about two paragraphs...  But yes, I do love Kindle and the ability to grab 95 samples and take a look. I don't miss bookstores because I don't miss getting in my car and sometimes coming home with books that I then start sampling...and find out none are to my taste. Yes, I probably read the back and a page or two while in the store, but what if page 3 stinks? It's happened...

I wrote a post on my last sampling weekend a while back (The weekend was meant to be a read a BOOK or two, not a sample session.) Two of the books were traditional; I believe the rest were indies. If anyone wants to read about an enraged reader:

http://www.bearmountainbooks.com/home/i-am-in-a-bad-mood-yes-i-am/



I was much more resistant to reading self-published books before kindle -- but that was because 1. those I had tried were hit/miss. One that comes to mind was every bit as good as a trad. One that comes to mind was from a micro-press and was obnoxiously bad, and One other was meh.

2. The price of self-pub'd books or even small press were generally in the 12 to 15 dollar range. When you read as much as I used to, that's a budget breaker.

So now that prices are what I was spending on used books--AND I can sample, I'll generally sample a lot of books and not be too particular about whether they are indie, small press or large press.

And yes, you are correct. I love to read.


----------



## ChesterCampbell (Apr 3, 2009)

Nancy Fulda said:


> One factor in traditional publishing is that the fast writers often write under two or three separate pseudonyms in several different genres. So even though they're churning out six books a year, only one book per year will be published under any given pseudonym.
> 
> Another factor: Traditionally-published writers seldom earn enough money to quit their day job even if the book is selling decently. So they're writing evenings and weekends and at 5:00 AM, whenever they can squeeze in the time. Indie authors earn a higher percentage on each sale, and they don't have to wonder whether a publisher will accept their next book. This gives them more confidence to quit the jay job early and produce books at a faster rate.
> 
> Third factor: Many traditional authors would be producing faster if the bureaucratic climate was conducive to it. But traditional publishing is glacially slow. Submission dates and production timetables are laid out years in advance, and books often get delayed through no fault of the author. David Walton's novel _Quintessence_ was accepted for publication um... I think about a year ago and Tor originally told him it would come out this summer. But the publishing timeline got shuffled around and it's now scheduled for 2012.


Nancy, your Third Factor is the major reason I chose to go with a micro press (few authors, fast turnaround). I'm pushing 86 and I don't have time to wait around for agents and major publisher editors to ponder over my manuscripts, then put them through a drawn-out production schedule.


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> I wrote a post on my last sampling weekend a while back (The weekend was meant to be a read a BOOK or two, not a sample session.) Two of the books were traditional; I believe the rest were indies. If anyone wants to read about an enraged reader:
> 
> http://www.bearmountainbooks.com/home/i-am-in-a-bad-mood-yes-i-am/


Oof. Yeah, that's a bad day. But on the bright side, you sampled and didn't buy. And on the _brighter_ side, you didn't spend the time in a bookstore and spend $50 on two books you didn't like and would have to make another trip to the frigging mall to return.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Patrick Reinken said:


> Oof. Yeah, that's a bad day. But on the bright side, you sampled and didn't buy. And on the _brighter_ side, you didn't spend the time in a bookstore and spend $50 on two books you didn't like and would have to make another trip to the frigging mall to return.


Actually...I DID purchase most of those books. One of them was on that Super Amazon Sale thing...Sunshine sale at the beginning of summer. I had read the sample at the time -- the book was originally $9.99 as the regular price. The sample was short, one chapter. It sounded decent, came recommended, and so when it went Sunshine for 1.99 or something like that, I thought, "Gotta get it now!" It was probably the most boring of the lot.

I think 3 of the books were free.

One of the books was $2.99 and came highly recommended by a couple of people (and in fact, they swear I have not given it enough of a chance. Perhaps. But I think it was around book 5...and by that time, my patience was thin. I'm as patient as the next...oh, no I'm not.) At any rate, it also started out decently strong, came rec'd and so I had bought it.

HOWEVER, your point is perfectly valid. Total I spent under 10 dollars...maybe even under 5 for all those books. That's a LOT less painful than had I spent an average of 8 dollars for each book. I went back and looked and I think 3 were trads and the rest were Indies. One of the books was a backlist by an author, who had previously published it with a regular house (I think. She has some trad and some not.)

The one I'm considering going back and giving another try is an indie FWIW. NONE of the books had serious typos, although one did quite a bit of head-hopping.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

/random

I get sent a lot of book review requests. Most I reject immediately because I'm either too busy/just got 5 of the same subgenre & took those or they didn't read the guidelines (this happens...so much). Sometimes, I have to turn down something that sounds interesting. That always sucks. Those folks I try to give other review site recommendations to.

For those that pass to where I can read their blurbs/initial sample, about 75% I decline because I can tell the stories just aren't ready. It's like the author wanted to get in on the indie gold rush...and put out something that just wasn't ready. 

I really have to resist the urge to email those folks back and actually tell them why I'm turning them down. Experience tells me to keep my mouth shut.

/derandom


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

ebookeditingpro said:


> I truly understand your concern--that indie authors are somehow watering down the publishing industry. I've found that not to be true at all. In fact, most indie authors are quite talented and have come up with original concepts that were not deemed commercially viable. Having said that, I have run across some books that should not have been put before the reading public.
> 
> People have a huge cache of never-published books and are putting them out now.
> 
> Though this might seem self-serving, it's really not: I do wish every indie author would have their books edited. Books that are riddled with inconsistencies, incorrect word usage, and grammar mistakes do water down the industry. An author who maintains quality while churning out books is a superstar. An author who churns out a product that is unreadable does hurt the overall indie author movement.


Absolutely agree with this post


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

If anyone is interested in finding good indie books, Amazon has just opened it's Kindle Indie Bookstore. They post the bestselling and most popular of the indies. I think it just opened yesterday.


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> If anyone is interested in finding good indie books, Amazon has just opened it's Kindle Indie Bookstore. They post the bestselling and most popular of the indies. I think it just opened yesterday.


I saw a FAQ link on this on KDP, shortly before seeing your post, Gertie: https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?moduleId=200734540.

It says they'll be placing "top selling, popular and high quality books" in their Indie Bookstore, and you can't seek selection (presumably meaning for the "high quality" category, since you'd think "top selling" and "popular" would self-identify...). Instead, Amazon will select them, using a "combination of automated techniques and editorial activities to select books based on criteria that we believe will best serve the interest of Kindle readers."

Should be interesting....


----------



## youngadultfiction (Jul 28, 2011)

I think if the books are good, then that's all that matters. As some people have mentioned, some writers have been working for 10 plus years on novels that have been rejected by agents/publishers. If they now have an audience that wants to read more of their work, then why not? Just because you have 7 or 8 books out on kindle over the last couple of years, doesn't mean they were all written in a couple of hours and will be badly written.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

I actually find that the less people involved, the less time it takes. When you do it yourself, you are the only limiter. You can push yourself as hard as you like and get far more work done, than if multiple people had separate jobs pertaining to it.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

hakimast said:


> I actually find that the less people involved, the less time it takes. When you do it yourself, you are the only limiter. You can push yourself as hard as you like and get far more work done, than if multiple people had separate jobs pertaining to it.


This is very true, but it's not just about time (IMO it's not about time at all)...it's about quality.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Patrick Reinken said:


> Maria, I've read your earlier posts and I expect you'll agree with this.... That search you wrote about is a _good_ thing, right? Isn't the search sort of a wash, in terms of searching bookstores versus searching online samples? Isn't the addition of more books really just a plus given that balance, since it's more sandy beaches where treasure can be dug out?
> 
> And doesn't this discussion really come down to that one point: whether Big Pub or "indie," there may be flaws in what's put out there and how it's done, and there will be good books and there will be bad, and we have to search to find them, but it's all about finding a story that resonates with you because of its characters or plot or settings or simply the way someone has put their words together.
> 
> We all just like books. And to me, this is one more way to find those books.


Mmmm, not for me. I have a backlog of books/authors/genres to read. I do enjoy finding new things but my time is valuable (to me). I want to spend it and my $ wisely. And thus far, the percentages lean towards those authors developed and supported by a stronger editing and more discriminatory publishing process.

And for me it's not just about how good the ...story is...it _has _ to be well-written. Very well written. The bar is very high after yrs of being exposed to the mainstream publishing world....who have done alot of the winnowing of the chaff for us already. (And missed some good ones, no doubt.)


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Vicky Foxx said:


> I have a hard drive full of writing! And much of that is varying genres, spanning about fifteen years! Also, most of it isn't publishable. *What most people forget is that a writer is very similar to a musician. In order to write well, we must practice! And how do we practice? By writing of course. * When I learned about publishing on Kindle, I dusted off a ton of old stuff and started cleaning it up. So I was able to publish seven works (5 short stories and two novellas) pretty easily.


This ^^ is a good part of what I'm thinking.


----------



## Marc Johnson (Feb 25, 2011)

I've thought about this too, but I wouldn't say I'm disturbed. As a writer, it kind of makes me feel...inadequate. I plan to release one book a year and can't help but feel as if I write slow. Then I think about how I have a full time job; get multiple professional edits, which each take a few months; and my books tend to be 2 to 2 1/2x longer than most. Then I just stop caring about it.

As a reader, I don't care how many books people turn out unless it's an author I like. Then I want to read as much as I can.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> And for me it's not just about how good the ...story is...it _has _ to be well-written. Very well written. The bar is very high after yrs of being exposed to the mainstream publishing world....who have done alot of the winnowing of the chaff for us already. (And missed some good ones, no doubt.)


From what you've written earlier (and I think you mentioned some authors you like, but I can't remember!) do you mean "well-written" or beautifully written?  Because for me those are two different things, but not for everyone. For example, I have a very simple writing style. Not a lot of poetic phrases (okay, none.) I wouldn't say I turn a perfect phrase very often, which is something attributed to some writing styles. I prefer to read "well-written" books, but not necessarily those that are...I guess poetic. It's not that I mind a magnificent phrasing, but I can consider something well-written without it.

And it doesn't really matter; I think I get your point. But "well-written" in some contexts actually has different underlying values for different people. Some are more drawn to certain styles and as a style point, I don't think there's a huge bridge between indie and trad--the style isn't usually where *I* have issues. To some people "well-written" has to have ALL the things we've talked about from grammar on up to a certain style with perfect plotting, setting and world building.

(And they are all valid for each reader. I was merely curious about your emphasis.)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

By those distinctions, a book _has_ to be well-written for me to enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily have to be "beautifully written." But that is a big thing that separates the great books from the good books though. The best books, IMO, are those that are well written, have a great plot and characters and also have clever/beautiful/memorable use of language.


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

No doubt about it - we are living in the new pulp age, except that unlike so many who struggled during the '20s and '30s to make a living. many now suddenly find themselves the subject of fascination by readers. Edgar Rice Burroughs had been a wholesale pencil sharpener salesman, until he looked and decided that he could write at the level of the authors around him - pulp-style. Me, I write a book every 2-4 years, and I get bites from traditional publishers and agents. I have my own company, and carry the works of other authors and do classic compilations. Amazon now carries over a million Kindle books, most of which are likely written by independents. Likely, due to the very reasons you mentioned. There is that natural selection which will discourage some and encourage others. We simply have more choices now, and can decide which books and authors we choose to avoid or ignore altogether. To your point, I believe that there just needs to grow a better infrastructure to support quality in editing, cover art and layout, and that more than anything else is what is lacking in the indie movement. Not with all, but then again, 950,000 of the 1 million plus books currently available on Kindle sell 40 copies or less. So the process has begun. I think we can only write because we love to for so long, before reality sets in and the talented survivors come to the fore. Until then, the only ting you can do is look for those diamonds in the rough, or the occasional midlister who came back down the road from traditional publishing to educate and entertain us.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> By those distinctions, a book _has_ to be well-written for me to enjoy it. It doesn't necessarily have to be "beautifully written." But that is a big thing that separates the great books from the good books though. The best books, IMO, are those that are well written, have a great plot and characters and also have clever/beautiful/memorable use of language.


Ah, yes. I differ from you on that. I generally like clever language, but I speed read much of what I read. And I love a simple, fun book or one that just gets the point across--a couple of paragraphs for me to get my seat belt on and then mostly action and forward motion is okay with me. My idea of a great book deals more with plot and a good setting--Patricia Briggs' When Demon's Walk has been a "read again" because it has a PERFECT plot that includes fantasy (magic), a great setting, great (and fun) characters, with a mystery, and a romance. That's not to say that her words are sloppy or lazy, but thankfully it's all about moving forward at a great pace and characterization.

This is why it's great that there are so many books and so many styles. I also like to delve into different paces/styles once in a while. And, of course, at different points during my life, I liked different things. I used to read a lot of thrillers. Now I tend more toward cozies. I used to read a lot of fantasy. Now I tend more toward urban fantasy, which are a different style and pace.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, I only speed read stuff I'm reading for work.

Leisure reading I read pretty slow--basically the pace I'd read if reading out loud, as I'm doing it to relax and like to appreciate the language etc.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

hakimast said:


> I actually find that the less people involved, the less time it takes. When you do it yourself, you are the only limiter. You can push yourself as hard as you like and get far more work done, than if multiple people had separate jobs pertaining to it.


Yes, traditional publishing can be "hurry up and wait." The author waits months sometimes for an editorial letter, then the editor may want the rewrites back in 3 weeks!  Also, the submission time itself can be lengthy. Send in a ms., wait months for a response, wait for editorial committee decision, wait for marketing decision, etc. It can be quite a wait for editor letter, copyeditor stuff, galley and so forth, especially since tradtional publishers are dealing with so many authors and manuscripts.

An indie author doesn't have to wait for the submission process and can often get proofreading, copyediting, etc. faster through critique partners, beta readers, etc.


----------



## hakimast (Jul 23, 2011)

I bet indie readers also have alot more trouble getting publicity, so they need more books just to keep people interested.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Ann Herrick said:


> Yes, traditional publishing can be "hurry up and wait." The author waits months sometimes for an editorial letter, then the editor may want the rewrites back in 3 weeks!  Also, the submission time itself can be lengthy. Send in a ms., wait months for a response, wait for editorial committee decision, wait for marketing decision, etc. It can be quite a wait for editor letter, copyeditor stuff, galley and so forth, especially since tradtional publishers are dealing with so many authors and manuscripts.
> 
> An indie author doesn't have to wait for the submission process and can often get proofreading, copyediting, etc. faster through critique partners, beta readers, etc.


While that's all true, we are also still writing the next book of the series, or writing a new series while all of this is going on.

So, yes, there is a lot of "hurry up and wait." However, during those "wait" periods, I'm writing something new, landing new contracts, and generally keeping really busy


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

Like the last post, I am usually writing on a novel while editing/revising a finished one. This process allows me a break between the two. A "normal" day for me is 3K of writing. I write between 3-5 hours per day and I am trying now to take Sundays off.  I did write a manuscript 4 years ago that I will revise and publish in the fall. Also, my second book took almost a year through the writing/editing process. My third about 5-6 months and this last one 4 ( it is still with Beta's). It looks like I may be fortunate enough in the future ( in theory) to write a book and fully edit it every 4-5 months. This year it will look like I "churned" because of the old manuscript and the dual writing and editing on simultaneous works. I just write fast because the ideas are there. I'm super lucky. The editing takes longer   That's just the way it goes...

One just doesn't know why that Indie has as many or as little titles as they do. As a reader, if I like their work, I am thrilled they have more for me to read...


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Orson Scott Card writes a novel in two weeks--after thinking about it for six months. 

Stephen King says, "I'm retired now--I only write two books a year."

RL Stine says unless you are writing 15 pages a day, you are a hobbyist, not a professional writer.

Thomas Harris writes a great book every seven years--and then spends almost as long writing a sucky one (last Hannibal book).

Writing fast doesn't equal writing badly any more than agonizing over your precious prose for two decades makes the book a timeless classic. Sure, the reading public is overwhelmed at the moment, but if you don't really care about writing, why not dump as much junk out there as you can and hope you make some money before the Gold Rush is over? 

If you're a real writer, you're going to do whatever it takes to make the book the best it can be.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

Some people really are prolific.  Some people have stacks of old manuscripts scattered around, too.  

Until last winter I would never have even considered publishing independently, because the stigma was very negative.

I WILL say I think some people are shoving too much out for the good of their sales.  I keep hearing "if it's out, you're selling, there is no benefit to delay."

Yes, there is.  Building demand through desire isn't something to completely dismiss, but that's just MHO.


----------



## Jason Halstead (Mar 18, 2011)

Your questions might have been answered a few hundred posts back, but why not toss more gas on the fire?

I'm a published author who's trying out the independent thing. While published over the span of about 18 months I had five books go out (plus the initial one). Since then I've been trying the self-publishing route.

Writing speed and quality are two major factors. When I'm inspired and properly fueled (rest or lots of caffeine) I'm writing hard and fast. The last couple I put out through my old publisher needed virtually no editing, according to my publisher. I freaked out, for the record, and went back through to do a major self-edit but still missed a few typos (one of the reasons I don't go through that publisher anymore).

If I could make writing my only career (something I'm trying very hard to do), I believe I could put out four - six books a year. After all, just because one is in the editing and cover art phase doesn't mean I can't be writing another one at the same time. My belief is: when I'm on - I'm on.

Of course the next obvious question is - do they suck? I'm rather fond of them, but I'm biased. My reviews have been 4 and 5 stars as well, so I take that to mean I've done a good job. My audience is nowhere near as large as I want it to be though, so I invite anybody who's interested to check them out and let me know if I've been deluding myself or not.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> Thanks Mlpmom. Your support helps us exist.
> 
> And I should have mentioned MLPMOM and her reviews earlier. I have followed her reviews on goodreads for a long time and only recently came across her blog.
> 
> ...


Thank you for mentioning my blog!! 

I haven't read any of your books yet but I do plan on rectifying that soon!

I try to be as honest as possible in my reviews, especially with Indie authors and I do read a wide variety of books. This week alone I read 3 different Indie books (one contemporary romance, one YA and one paranormal mystery) and just started my fourth, I have reviewed them all and was as honest as I could be. 
We all have different tastes in books and what we consider good and not good so what appeals to me might not appeal to you. If you don't want to sample books then I would at least read a few reviews if possible or join Goodreads and find friends that have your same taste in books and watch their reviews and recommendations. I try to make all mine spoiler free as well so I don't ruin anything for anyone.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

MLPMom said:


> Thank you for mentioning my blog!!
> 
> I haven't read any of your books yet but I do plan on rectifying that soon!
> 
> ...


That's such a pretty blog! Kudos!


----------



## indiebookslist (Aug 5, 2011)

> I figure some authors are just prolific.


So far, we have several factors, all of which are correct:

1.) Massive back catalogs.
2.) Formerly traditionally published.
3.) Prolific writers.

Here's a fourth: Passion. These people are writing what they want to write, without consideration as to whether it would market well to the public at large. Maybe they are only writing for 100 people who would ever read their book. ePubbing gives them a chance to write that book, without the fear of commercial consequence. They get to skip the gatekeeper, and let the public decide.

In many cases, they may publish a fourth, fifth, or even sixth novel. They know the characters, they do what the characters want, and they don't stop to ask an editor "Would my character do this?". That occasionally results in a lousy book. If it does, people won't buy that book. It's that simple. The reviews speak for themselves, and the sample is more than enough to let you know when the book is lagging, both in content and style.

When you read a horrible book by a traditionally published author, does it keep you from reading another work published in that fashion? It never stopped me, and I've read enough of the "big league" books to fill a small library.

How many traditionally published books are out there with multiple edits, an inviting cover, and have no original characters? Plenty.

The day is coming shortly, when we will judge the work of authors, and won't care about whether they were signed or not. Yes, I am biased.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

indiebookslist said:


> When you read a horrible book by a traditionally published author, does it keep you from reading another work published in that fashion?


Typos are the main difference. I have very little patience for typos in books I pay for. Poor stories etc. are universal across traditional published books and indies. But typos are far more prevalent in indies unfortunately. They've got to get the quality control up.


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> Building demand through desire isn't something to completely dismiss, but that's just MHO.


I absolutely agree.


----------



## Patrick Reinken (Aug 4, 2011)

indiebookslist said:


> So far, we have several factors, all of which are correct:
> 
> 1.) Massive back catalogs.
> 2.) Formerly traditionally published.
> ...


And I agree with every word here, too, and that makes me say again that it all comes down to the story and what each of us looks for in it and what each of us finds it.

The past 15 years have been a time of enormous change in the _industry_ of writing. That's brought with it an enormous set of new possibilities, where anyone can be a publisher, and that in turn has brought with it an enormous increase in the materials out there.

They'll all be measured by the reaction to them, and some will survive that and some will not. In that way, that industry of writing is no different from what it was before.


----------



## Ann Herrick (Sep 24, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> While that's all true, we are also still writing the next book of the series, or writing a new series while all of this is going on.
> 
> For example, I wrote Tranquility's Blaze (book #1 of an epic fantasy series). While it was in submissions, I wrote my military SF novel, Road to Hell. I sold Road to Hell before T-Blaze. Two months later, I sold the fantasy. Right now, I'm writing book #2 of the fantasy series, while going through content edits on Road to Hell, while just signing my third book deal of the year for a fantasy writer's reference guide. I'm also editing a novella that I'm self publishing around Christmas.
> 
> So, yes, there is a lot of "hurry up and wait." However, during those "wait" periods, I'm writing something new, landing new contracts, and generally keeping really busy


Oh, I didn't mean to imply a writer would do nothing while waiting to hear from an editor, only that a particular manuscript would be held up during the submission process, the revision process, etc.  The writer would (or should) be working on something else in the meantime.


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

It depends on the author. Scott Nicholson pumps out books at an incredible rate, but his books are (IMO) awesome. When most authors put out books that quickly, I assume the books aren't going to be very good, because I rarely find "prolific" authors whose work I really respect. But it depends on the author. Luckily we can sample before we buy.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Ann Herrick said:


> Oh, I didn't mean to imply a writer would do nothing while waiting to hear from an editor, only that a particular manuscript would be held up during the submission process, the revision process, etc.  The writer would (or should) be working on something else in the meantime.


I really need to add a "using this person's post to remind the rest of you not to take what s/he says out of context" and then get on my soapbox.  Alas, I just quoted you and then went on the soapbox.

I know folks who just sit on their bottoms during the submission, editing, and post-release. They give me heartburn.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I really need to add a "using this person's post to remind the rest of you not to take what s/he says out of context" and then get on my soapbox.  Alas, I just quoted you and then went on the soapbox.
> 
> I know folks who just sit on their bottoms during the submission, editing, and post-release. They give me heartburn.


Sorry to give you heartburn, Krista, but I take a couple of weeks off.


----------



## Susan Brassfield Cogan (Mar 25, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I don't care how many books a writer churns out in a year, or if they're new or backlist. If they're good, that's all I need.


I'm afraid I have to agree. Quality is all that matters, not whether the book is the 5th the author has produced this year.

Always read the sample before buying. You can tell within a few pages if you have a turkey. I don't see how an author can write more than a couple of books a year and have them be a good quality product. But that's me. There are people who write very fast and have a brain full of ideas. If those ideas suck you will be able to tell when you read the sample. You can vote with your feet and maybe they will slow down and get better!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Some authors spend 10+ hours a day on writing/editing/revising etc. Personally, I thank them. I read at a voracious rate, and have been reading indies almost EXCLUSIVELY for the past year. The only time I end up with bad ones are the ones that Lynn tells me "Go read THIS book. I need a low review for the site." Ones where I get to choose? Almost all have been 4star or higher. I think I've hit about 3/300+ that I read in the past year that were 3 star. It's not that hard to find GOOD books by indies if you do even a minimal amount of research. I mean *MINIMAL*.. I rarely sample even.. The only samples I have are books I am planning to buy.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I really need to add a "using this person's post to remind the rest of you not to take what s/he says out of context" and then get on my soapbox.  Alas, I just quoted you and then went on the soapbox.
> 
> I know folks who just sit on their bottoms during the submission, editing, and post-release. They give me heartburn.


I keep on writing, because that's how I work. Usually, I'm already onto my next piece before the old is even submitted. But some writers take vacation between submissions and wait - some people like to recharge. Just different habits, I guess.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

anne_holly said:


> I keep on writing, because that's how I work. Usually, I'm already onto my next piece before the old is even submitted. But some writers take vacation between submissions and wait - some people like to recharge. Just different habits, I guess.


I have to catch up on laundry and reading.


----------



## HDJensen (Apr 20, 2011)

I think it's hard to answer this in specific terms. It really all depends on which indie author you're talking about. As mentioned before, some authors have been writing for years and years and decide to start publishing their own work. If that's the case, they may crank out eight books in a few short years, while others are publishing books that they have the rights to that are no longer in print from a traditional publisher. Also, I can think of some traditionally published authors who crank out an amazing number of books in a short time. Richelle Mead, for instance, has been writing at least three, if not four, series' at once for a few years now. I've always been astonished at the rate she finishes books. Also, it depends on whether the author has a day job or can write full time. Some authors are capable of writing an entire novel in a month or two, and then spending a few months on editing and revision before they start the entire process all over again. I have a goal to do one novel a year, including the writing time, editing, and self-publishing. That's a good goal for me, considering I'm a wife and mother and can't devote my entire day to writing. It all comes down to the author. If the author is writing amazing stories and they are polished, does it really matter that they can do them so fast? If they aren't written well, they won't sell.


----------



## Meb Bryant (Jun 27, 2011)

Remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare?

I'm the darn turtle! 

Meb


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

Meb Bryant said:


> Remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare?
> 
> I'm the darn turtle!
> 
> Meb


*Raises hand* Hi, I'm Moses and I'm a recovering tortoise. I would like to become a hare (working on it).


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> From what you've written earlier (and I think you mentioned some authors you like, but I can't remember!) do you mean "well-written" or beautifully written?  Because for me those are two different things, but not for everyone. For example, I have a very simple writing style. Not a lot of poetic phrases (okay, none.) I wouldn't say I turn a perfect phrase very often, which is something attributed to some writing styles. I prefer to read "well-written" books, but not necessarily those that are...I guess poetic. It's not that I mind a magnificent phrasing, but I can consider something well-written without it.
> 
> And it doesn't really matter; I think I get your point. But "well-written" in some contexts actually has different underlying values for different people. Some are more drawn to certain styles and as a style point, I don't think there's a huge bridge between indie and trad--the style isn't usually where *I* have issues. To some people "well-written" has to have ALL the things we've talked about from grammar on up to a certain style with perfect plotting, setting and world building.
> 
> (And they are all valid for each reader. I was merely curious about your emphasis.)


I mean well-written. I can read alot of styles, including 'beautiful' (altho that mean alot of things too)...but they have to be "well-written." Besides prose, it includes being very well organized and structured (which I shouldnt even notice!)...either the writer or an editor can do that. It's not as formal as it sounds....it's just the way the story is told, they way it flows.

I can even read writing styles that I dont care much for, if they are well-written and have a great story.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Sorry to give you heartburn, Krista, but I take a couple of weeks off.


A couple of weeks is a vacation. I'm talking the people who don't do anything else for months and months. "I can't write anything new. I have ABC out on submission." Then, if ABC gets sold. "I can't write anything. I'm block." Then, ABC gets published. "I can't write. I need to market."

I find it frustrating because I'm listening to these folks complain about how difficult writing and publishing is...but they are never actually writing and publishing. If they did it away, I wouldn't mind so much


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> I mean well-written. I can read alot of styles, including 'beautiful' (altho that mean alot of things too)...but they have to be "well-written." Besides prose, it includes being very well organized and structured (which I shouldnt even notice!)...either the writer or an editor can do that. It's not as formal as it sounds....it's just the way the story is told, they way it flows.
> 
> I can even read writing styles that I dont care much for, if they are well-written and have a great story.


Good definition of well-written. Although, I don't think the editor can do that. The editor can point out flaws or mention that there are too many characters or tangents...and *believe me* those are a bear to correct, but once an editor has read a book, and then changes of that nature have been made, it starts to get muddy as to how much can or has been cleared up. Also one reader's tangent is another reader's gold. I see this in cozy mystery discussions all the time when it comes the "mystery" versus the "humor" or the "romance." Some cozy readers get very upset if the romance (usually a subplot, but is a VERY common subplot) takes center stage too much. Other readers don't want books without that subplot and expect it to be advanced in each book much as the mystery is.

Now then, I'm guessing since you've obviously read across several genres, that you can and do recognize when these things are done purposely and for the sake of style--while, as you said, you may not care for it, it's still possible to recognize the skill (or lack there of) of how it was actually implemented. For example, I don't particularly care for time-travel stories, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize when they are done skillfully versus a big fat mess.


----------



## ShelleyAdina (Jul 31, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> A couple of weeks is a vacation. I'm talking the people who don't do anything else for months and months. "I can't write anything new. I have ABC out on submission." Then, if ABC gets sold. "I can't write anything. I'm block." Then, ABC gets published. "I can't write. I need to market." I find it frustrating because I'm listening to these folks complain about how difficult writing and publishing is...but they are never actually writing and publishing. If they did it away, I wouldn't mind so much


Sounds like these poor authors are suffering from fear of writing! The cure for it, of course, is to sit down and Just Do It, but sometimes it's easier to Just Talk About It  The awful part of letting this fear take over is that by the time the author has done the submitting, the promoting, etc. they're mentally so far away from the book that block sets in. Talk about a vicious circle.

The couple of weeks' vacation, on the other hand, is vital. Suzanne Brockmann once said she took 20 minutes to breathe, and then dove right into the next book. I can't. Oy. A couple of weeks to read, to go to movies, to take some long walks, re-introduce myself to my family, and generally fill the well again ... that's vital. Otherwise there's a real danger of burnout.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> Good definition of well-written. Although, I don't think the editor can do that. The editor can point out flaws or mention that there are too many characters or tangents...and *believe me* those are a bear to correct, but once an editor has read a book, and then changes of that nature have been made, it starts to get muddy as to how much can or has been cleared up. Also one reader's tangent is another reader's gold. I see this in cozy mystery discussions all the time when it comes the "mystery" versus the "humor" or the "romance." Some cozy readers get very upset if the romance (usually a subplot, but is a VERY common subplot) takes center stage too much. Other readers don't want books without that subplot and expect it to be advanced in each book much as the mystery is.
> 
> Now then, I'm guessing since you've obviously read across several genres, that you can and do recognize when these things are done purposely and for the sake of style--while, as you said, you may not care for it, it's still possible to recognize the skill (or lack there of) of how it was actually implemented. For example, I don't particularly care for time-travel stories, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize when they are done skillfully versus a big fat mess.


IMO, editors can have a great influence on organization, structure, pace, etc. It can make a big difference in how the story works and flows. Great editors can make a good writer a very good writer.

And I agree...there are many good and great writers who I can recognize as such that I dont particularly care to read, not my style. Some of the classics come to mind....I find them heavy, pretentious, course, overly cryptic, etc. Or too flip (I'm sure there is a more traditional word for that, lol). Of just too preachy.

Mostly I recognize the opposite tho...writers whose style does suit me and I read them _despite _ their genre...like Stephen King...I read him because he's a good storyteller, not because he writes horror (which I generally dont care for).


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

It is not unreasonable to expect a genre writer to complete 4 books in a year. One book should be cupcakes. Two books easy.

The problem is most publishers won't take anything more than one book per year, unless you're using a pseudonym. And you'd probably be surprised by how many authors write under multiple names, including some you read, sometimes secretly by contract.

Also, because indie writers are doing the work themselves they can get things moving a lot faster. Publishing is a super slow industry.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> IMO, editors can have a great influence on organization, structure, pace, etc. It can make a big difference in how the story works and flows. Great editors can make a good writer a very good writer.
> 
> And I agree...there are many good and great writers who I can recognize as such that I dont particularly care to read, not my style. Some of the classics come to mind....I find them heavy, pretentious, course, overly cryptic, etc. Or too flip (I'm sure there is a more traditional word for that, lol). Of just too preachy.
> 
> Mostly I recognize the opposite tho...writers whose style does suit me and I read them _despite _ their genre...like Stephen King...I read him because he's a good storyteller, not because he writes horror (which I generally dont care for).


I think a good editor can INFLUENCE, yes. BUT ultimately it is up to the writer to fix them--and only the writer determines HOW WELL they get fixed. Great editors are even more rare than a good or great writer. These days, especially in trad publishing, I think they are even more rare than they used to be as they take on more work, more writers and are given less time.

I say the part about influence because I've been in enough critique situations where a writer gets many suggestions. The writer has to figure out what the problem really is (for example one story can yield various complaints--but only a very experienced editor or writer might recognize that 4 completely different complaints really boil down to a single problem: One critique person might say, 'I'm confused' -- but not why. Another might say, "There are too many characters." Another might say, "This pacing is all wrong and I'm getting jerked back and forth." The fourth might say, 'Too many POV!" But the ultimate problem and analysis might be: There are too many plots and subplots. The writer can choose to get rid of a plotline, a character(s) ... or integrate them better by getting rid of multiple POV and using one or two. The key is that a good editor has to be familiar with the author, the genre and what that author is trying to do. And be able to help analyze. That's a rare skill. Authors tend to repeat problems (at least I do and I'm also a beta reader for a few authors.) We can be told again and again about a weakness--and be POSITIVE we've licked it...only to have it come back and bite us in the...pants. That is what beta readers or editors are for. To catch us when we get lazy, to kick us a bit when we fall back into bad habits, etc.

The editor also has to be prepared to step back and let the writer be creative in reaching the improvement. Not always easy. I've worked with some editors/beta readers who want to "rewrite" the plot to satisfy their own creativity. And so on. You can imagine.

It takes some experience as a writer to learn to filter through "complaints" and figure out what the problem is--or even IF there is a problem, but in my experience it is extremely common to get 5 different complaints about a single chapter--none saying the same thing, but all pointing to SOMETHING IS NOT WORKING HERE.

Shrug. There are different ways to climb the mountain. Some use beta readers (whether trad or not) some get a great editor, some flounder and some learn faster and better than others.

All I know is: It ain't easy. Not one step of it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.
> 
> But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.
> 
> ...


Like many indie authors, I have a backlist with rights that have been returned to me and several novels my former agent had been shopping to publishers.There is no reason I should take more than a year to get them out that know of.

No, editors do not and should not have a _great influence_ on organization, structure, pace, etc. A good editor can point out possible flaws, but it is up to the author to make the decisions and do the writing.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

David Alastair Hayden said:


> It is not unreasonable to expect a genre writer to complete 4 books in a year. One book should be cupcakes. Two books easy.


Last night, I was on a panel discussion alongside Rachel Caine. She said that her contracts have her finishing a novel every 3 months now - and all are in her own name!


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Last night, I was on a panel discussion alongside Rachel Caine. She said that her contracts have her finishing a novel every 3 months now - and all are in her own name!


Wow. That's highly unusual. But great for her! (Maybe things are changing?)


----------



## I love books (Aug 12, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I don't care how many books a writer churns out in a year, or if they're new or backlist. If they're good, that's all I need.


I agree, as long as it's a great book. I've read some wonderful books that were written in less than a month and I've also read wonderful books that took years to write. I guess it all depends. Some writers are more prolific than others. For instance, the late romance novelist Barbara Cartland apparently wrote a novel a week (albeit, short romance books). She ended up with , I believe, 723 published novels during her lifetime not to mention she left behind 160 unpublished manuscripts. She was also a busy wife, mother and activist. Pretty incredible! Personally, I don't think I would have the strength or brainpower to do what she did. LOL.


----------



## *Sandy Harper* (Jun 22, 2011)

There are many authors who came from amazon shorts. Now they publish ebooks as indie authors. Since there is no editing, so anyone can publish anything. I don't know how long can this lost. But it is very unfair for real authors who spend years to write a book.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> A couple of weeks is a vacation. I'm talking the people who don't do anything else for months and months. "I can't write anything new. I have ABC out on submission." Then, if ABC gets sold. "I can't write anything. I'm block." Then, ABC gets published. "I can't write. I need to market."
> 
> I find it frustrating because I'm listening to these folks complain about how difficult writing and publishing is...but they are never actually writing and publishing. If they did it away, I wouldn't mind so much


Writing *is* my vacation.

Heaven bless fictional worlds where I control everything. sigh.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> There are many authors who came from amazon shorts. Now they publish ebooks as indie authors. Since there is no editing, so anyone can publish anything. I don't know how long can this lost. But it is very unfair for real authors who spend years to write a book.


I would never want the responsibility of deciding who is a "real author" or not. I choose which ones I read, but I'm glad I'm not in charge of handing out the badges. If I did, though, I'm not sure I'd define it by how long it takes to write a book - I am sure some people could take years to produce a stinker, the same way others can produce crap very quickly.

I would point out, though, that sales of guides to publishing and marketing ebooks might dip if we did eject the "not real authors."


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> No, editors do not and should not have a _great influence_ on organization, structure, pace, etc. A good editor can point out possible flaws, but it is up to the author to make the decisions and do the writing.


Heh, that sounds good but it's not necessary reality.

Few are great writers naturally. For most, it is a craft that takes alot of work and trial and error.

Editors can and do offer those things....yes, it is up to the writer to accept or reject their contributions (altho sometimes it is up to the publishing house)....but the writer doesnt always choose 'correctly.' And good writers tend to learn along the way. That is part of the 'work and trial and error.'


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason Halstead said:


> Your questions might have been answered a few hundred posts back, but why not toss more gas on the fire?
> 
> I'm a published author who's trying out the independent thing. While published over the span of about 18 months I had five books go out (plus the initial one). Since then I've been trying the self-publishing route.
> 
> ...


Note: this is not just directed at this author...I've read a similar strategy several times in this thread.

This is just me, but as I've written once or twice already....for _me_, if I read one and I dont like it, I'm not likely to try another....big publisher or indie or self-published. If you just push out lots of mediocre...or your 'learning curve' books....some people may never come back.

The mainstream publishers often act as buffers for things like this....if it doesnt meet a certain standard, it gets shelved. Rejection does tend to send people back to the drawing board.

Granted...the bigger publishers may have limited marketing audiences and agendas. I'm not saying they dont miss some of the good ones.

In riding, we call it 'wet saddle blankets.' Meaning nothing makes you a good rider except riding...and riding...and more riding. (But that doesnt necessarily mean showing! Or in the case of authors...publishing)


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

Meb Bryant said:


> Remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare?
> 
> I'm the darn turtle!
> 
> Meb


Me too! I used to feel bad about writing slowly, taking 10 drafts to work on my mysteries, but I've learned to cut it down to 5 or 6 drafts. While that's still too long for some I'm okay with it, or was. I've now signed with a traditional publisher who'd like me to put out a book a year, so I'm beginning to feel like a hamster in a wheel...running fast and occasionally bumping into the walls.

Deb


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

I'd just like to say that the existence of this thread made me smile.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> I would never want the responsibility of deciding who is a "real author" or not. I choose which ones I read, but I'm glad I'm not in charge of handing out the badges. If I did, though, I'm not sure I'd define it by how long it takes to write a book - I am sure some people could take years to produce a stinker, the same way others can produce crap very quickly.


I agree with this statement SO MUCH!

I don't trust those who hand out badges. They usually have agendas.

Length does not equal quality. Some of the greatest works of literature (if you agree with that concept) were written incredibly fast. Speed is irrelevant.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

*blink* There are badges?


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm glad this thread has spurned a lot of conversation from multiple perspectives 

My general impression is similar to *9MMare*'s:



9MMare said:


> Note: this is not just directed at this author...I've read a similar strategy several times in this thread.
> 
> This is just me, but as I've written once or twice already....for _me_, if I read one and I dont like it, I'm not likely to try another....big publisher or indie or self-published. If you just push out lots of mediocre...or your 'learning curve' books....some people may never come back.
> 
> ...


I have to admit that my main concern about indie 'churning' is that I would be reading the 'learning curve' books. When I read, I want to read *THE BEST*. Even with your favorite authors, there are usually only one or two titles that hold that distinction, no? I have no time or inclination to read something that is just 'good enough'. There are many other worthier books I could read.

However, many of you have made me aware that it *is *possible to come up with high quality work in a short period of time so I now approach this topic with a more open mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2011)

Every book for every author is a learning curve book. That's not to say every author's book is better than the previous ones, but they should and usually do try to make them so.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

marimorimo said:


> I'm glad this thread has spurned a lot of conversation from multiple perspectives
> 
> My general impression is similar to *9MMare*'s:
> 
> ...


Technically, as a reader, I have seen this myself--but only with trad books because if there are signs of it with indies OR trads these days, I don't generally keep reading. I just don't have the time for average books, although I've certainly read them in my time.

I had a rather long discussion with a friend of mine about whether the first Dresden book (wildly popular--Jim Butcher is the author) was what y'all refer to as a "learning curve book." Okay, to be completely honest, I love to get a rise out of said friend and it's her favorite series so I was highly motivated to be annoying. There's nothing wrong with the book, but I did find it kind of "meh" while the furthest she will go is to admit that of the series the first is the weakest. 

Some authors writes their very best (IMO) at the beginning of the series. Some get better as they go. I'd say Evanovich wrote some of her best and strongest work at the start of the Stephanie "One for the Money" series. I went back to get stuff she had written earlier ... and wow. I was disappointed. Those early books could have been called "learning curve" books. They were published (I want to say they were romance first published by harlequin but I'm not sure I recall the publisher correctly.) They had a bit of mystery to them, but the book was pretty simple and a tad on the cliched, boring side. I have read of a number of authors who get their start this way: writing for a publisher that puts out shorter less complicated works. Now, that is kind of old days; I don't know if it still happens, but I do know some authors write for small publishers and make jumps to larger ones.

There's an author I follow now--Frank Tuttle. He writes for Samhain (he writes urban fantasy, not erotica, which the publisher is more known for.) I think his stuff is good enough for any venue. At least one book that wasn't accepted he did on his own on Kindle. Awesome stuff, IMO. Learning curve? I don't know. I haven't read all the books available. Maybe some of them were his learning curve, but the ones I've read don't say that.

The bottom line is there's just a huge mix out there. Writers go through periods or series where they are hitting every note right. They may fade early, peak early...it's not a linear learning curve. I've read lots of authors that seem to have a "back and forth" thing going. Carol O'Connell has one of my favorite books of all time out. She also has a series and other stand alones. Not every book is a hit out of the park. I'm guessing her concentration is different at different times and so on. One of her books in the series was a pretty big disappointment for me and had it been the first thing I read by her, I wouldn't have looked very hard for other books. It's in the middle of the series. After that one? One of the later ones blew me away.

I could go on and on. But really, writing and putting out books is far more complicated that "Okay, I learned and I'm ready for prime time." It doesn't matter if you write for a big 6 or self-publish.

Some readers are very hard on authors--even authors they love, they dole out stars as if paying for them.  I don't think they realize that stars, sales, reviews: all of it can add up to a good contract, a better contract...or no new contract at all. MOST writers, especially traditionally published ones, are not making a living by writing. It does not make enough money. I read COUNTLESS readers who don't buy new books, but then complain when a series gets cancelled. Hey, I've nothing against buying used books. *I* do it and will continue to do so. But when an author changes series or gets dropped, I understand that my choices did have something to do with it. Complaining about the publisher dropping a great series when you only get books from a library or buy used...well, you get the point.

It's a *tough* business no matter what road we choose. I'm not sure I have a point in all of this--but if you do love a particular author, support them. Give them great reviews. Buy their books. It matters. Trust me.


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> I'd say Evanovich wrote some of her best and strongest work at the start of the Stephanie "One for the Money" series. I went back to get stuff she had written earlier ... and wow. I was disappointed. Those early books could have been called "learning curve" books.


Yes, I had that impression too. Loved the Plum series so I checked out Evanovich's previous work and by golly, I could *not *even force myself to keep reading-- it was that painful. Tried about 2 titles and gave up. But apparently they were good enough to get published.

I believe it's rare for a writer to master storytelling and writing techniques from the get-go. That's what I personally consider the learning curve-- the process by which a writer learns what works and what doesn't to make a readable story. And I find it hard to believe that it would come from the very first effort. And part of my concern about indies "churning" is my fear that a certain percentage of writers are putting up works they finished after trying out the writing thing the day before yesterday.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

marimorimo said:


> Yes, I had that impression too. Loved the Plum series so I checked out Evanovich's previous work and by golly, I could *not *even force myself to keep reading-- it was that painful. Tried about 2 titles and gave up. But apparently they were good enough to get published.
> 
> I believe it's rare for a writer to master storytelling and writing techniques from the get-go. That's what I personally consider the learning curve-- the process by which a writer learns what works and what doesn't to make a readable story. And I find it hard to believe that it would come from the very first effort. And part of my concern about indies "churning" is my fear that a certain percentage of writers are putting up works they finished after trying out the writing thing the day before yesterday.


I agree, everything takes practice. It's probably true that some indie writers and possibly even some trad writers are throwing everything and anything out on Kindle. I know I have things that will never see the light of day and most of the people here have chimed in about writing for years and years. I read an article on Baen (Universe magazine, editorial I think) where the editor talked about how the short story market was often a learning place for new writers. I think to some degree that is true. It can serve as a "learning curve" if you're lucky enough to get feedback from editors or other writers. It can be an important step.

But every writer gets it somewhere (the successful ones, even if their success is only a book or two.) And honestly I think a number of them get it by publishing either short stories or it happens as they publish some of their early books with a small pub or other publisher who happens to need that type of story at a given time. (Maureen Tan is another author that comes to mind here. I read one of her books and was instantly in love. Went back for older stuff and...ugh.)

I guess my point is (if I have one, and I'm not sure I do!) indie authors may be publishing as part of a learning curve, but it's not that much different than what has happened in the trad world. Of course in the trad world authors AT LEAST have a copy editor and possibly even a plot/other editor as well.

There's no doubt that in the indie world there's a lower tier of quality than will ever be found in the trad world, but those are very easy to spot.

It's also true that at least one indie author who is pretty darn popular and has signed a trad deal... well, I thought the plotting was below average and not that great. There are other indie authors who I think are quite decent, but who break the "traditional rules" in some ways--yet it doesn't seem to bother a lot of readers. For example, I see a LOT more head-hopping in indie work than I do in trad. It's generally not done all that skillfully (popping around different character heads even within the same paragraph.) What I've found is that while I think of it as a 'rule,' it doesn't bother some readers in the least. When I read it, I can get used to it and enjoy the plot if there is one. So some of these hard and fast writing techniques ARE accepted by a lot of readers judging from the sales of some writers.

That has opened my eyes to not be quite so judgmental. Instead of immediately panning it, I will give it a *chance.* Granted, it's a *small* chance, but it's a chance that my former snobbiness wouldn't have allowed me to even consider.

It's made me question hard and fast rules--really THINK about them and what makes a story work for me. I wouldn't say I was out there on the cutting edge of techniques by any means. I'm not going crazy trying things. BUT I'm more open-minded about it AND I'm more opened minded about it when my editor(s) send me comments. I really think hard about what they are saying and whether they are just making a note from "habit" of what they are used to seeing...or if it really denotes a problem.

Another thing I'll say (and I am not defensive about this, nor am I trying to sound that way.) As an indie writer it has been much more difficult than I thought it would be to find top-notch copyeditors. Some of my books have gone through 3 rounds of it. I do not blame anyone but myself; they are my errors. HOWEVER, I am not the only indie writer to have participated in discussions, both online and off, about how we had certain expectations when paying for copyediting...and did not get a pro level return. A LOT of people have come out of the woodwork to offer indie writers services from editing, to copyediting, to artwork and so on. We do not always get what we pay for and sometimes have to do the job more than once. Many of us are trying. And we don't stop with improvements in any single book even after it is published.

(This is not to suggest anyone needs to read indies. I'm not trying to force anyone to change his/her mind. I'm merely sharing experiences from the other side of the fence.) I still agree that there are PLENTY of trad books--more than enough that there is no "need" to try indies based on reading material.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

marimorimo said:


> First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.
> 
> But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.
> 
> ...


A little insight, if it helps:

Only some indies manage to pull off that kind of productivity. For every indie with four or more books out per year, there are many others who are sitting there with only 1 or 2 releases.

Of those who have four or more books out in a year, please realize that some have had manuscripts making the rounds at traditional publishers for years before going indie. They kept writing while other manuscripts were being submitted. So what seems like a huge total in one year is more like a back-catalog of manuscripts; so all they have to do is hire an editor to bring the already-completed manuscript up to standard, and push them out the door.

Example: Amanda Hocking got off to a strong that in her first year as an indie, but had a huge backlog of book manuscripts to draw from. 2010 saw her release something like eight titles. This year, she's released one. So far. There might be two more on the way. Because she's running out of usable stuff from her backlog and is now "writing fresh."

With other indies, you need to look deeper than the number of titles. Some publish works that are shorter than full-length novels as standalone books. The average John Locke crime novel is 40,000 to 45,000 words. The average James Patterson novel is 80,000 to 120,000 words.

There's nothing wrong with offering up a shorter work as a standalone book if it's made clear that it's shorter. But it does make it easier to produce multiple titles per year. A 40,000-word manuscript won't take as long to write, or edit, or revise, as a much longer work.

Personally, my pace is that I might reach three novels in 2011. One of them was written initially 20 years ago, so all I had to do was update and revise. That was 62,000 words.

The second title is intentionally a short novel and will run about 33,000 words. Due out in September.

The third title is going to be the longest of the three... probably around 80,000 words. I'm hoping to get it out for Holiday Season 2011, but it may or may not make it.

I suspect my pace will hover around 2-4 novels a year, but I don't have a huge backlist of manuscripts that I feel are useable with some work/updating. So for the most part, I'm writing fresh.

But yeah, my point is, an indie author has several ways to achieve a high title count in a single year; so it's not always a signal of low quality.

if they can achieve that year after year after year, then maybe they're keeping pace with Patterson and King....


----------



## Jason_Matthews (Jul 12, 2010)

@marimorimo, I feel a similar way though there are lots of factors as people mentioned.

Both of my novels took a few years to write. One went from 2000 to 2005, and the sequel went from 2005 to 2009 (some due to procrastination and a busy life). More importantly in each case, some delay was due to not knowing the entire story and working with it as it unfolded over time, like a flower revealing itself to the author. I even take great pride that I could not know the stories entirely until working with them long enough that they finally showed themselves.

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Hmmm...Some of the talking points sound like trying to compare one fast-food chain with another. If that's one's standard for cuisine, then. Well. Certain genres lend themselves to "series" it seems, others do not. Bon appetit with that series thing. 

And it is the Big 6 conglom publishing entities who introduced the series, not indie writers. Agents push for 2- and 3-book deals to get a bigger cut from a bigger advance--though these days there are very few large advances. Maybe that series and genre pulp fiction isn't working that well.

So the thread title doesn't make much sense, IMO. It does not appear to be an indie problem nor is churning out pulp fiction exclusive to "indie" authors. BTW, Evanovich no longer places all her work with a Big 6 publisher...Speaking of McBooks and series.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

BRONZEAGE said:


> So the thread title doesn't make much sense, IMO. It does not appear to be an indie problem nor is churning out pulp fiction exclusive to "indie" authors. BTW, Evanovich no longer places all her work with a Big 6 publisher...Speaking of McBooks and series.


Last I heard, Evanovich wanted $50 Million for four books. That could be a good reason why.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I forgot to mention one other element.

Some indie writers are part-timeers with day jobs. Takes them longer.

You'd be surprised how much a writer can produce if they set their minds to it in an unemploy... err, I mean, full-time setting!


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I forgot to mention one other element.
> 
> Some indie writers are part-timeers with day jobs. Takes them longer.
> 
> You'd be surprised how much a writer can produce if they set their minds to it in an unemploy... err, I mean, full-time setting!


Depends on the job. I know a lot of people who write quite a lot because they ride a desk all day, and their work is light/boring.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> Depends on the job. I know a lot of people who write quite a lot because they ride a desk all day, and their work is light/boring.


True.

I know that for me, when I had a steady day job, If I wrote 3,000 words in a week, I felt I'd made good progress.

Now that I'm full time, I set that as the bar for "a good day."


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> Yes, I had that impression too. Loved the Plum series so I checked out Evanovich's previous work and by golly, I could *not *even force myself to keep reading-- it was that painful. Tried about 2 titles and gave up. But apparently they were good enough to get published.
> 
> I believe it's rare for a writer to master storytelling and writing techniques from the get-go. That's what I personally consider the learning curve-- the process by which a writer learns what works and what doesn't to make a readable story. And I find it hard to believe that it would come from the very first effort. And part of my concern about indies "churning" is my fear that a certain percentage of writers are putting up works they finished after trying out the writing thing the day before yesterday.


Agreed. I have read some very very good 'first novels.' But by no means does that mean that the author hasnt been writing and writing over the yrs.

There's a distinction between _writing _ and _publishing_. By the law of averages, an easier, faster, less overseen publishing process allows for alot more writing to be published that may not be of the same quality as those that get more oversight. Not only that, a writer can learn from that evaluation and scrutiny.

Jus sayin'


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I forgot to mention one other element.
> 
> Some indie writers are part-timeers with day jobs. Takes them longer.
> 
> You'd be surprised how much a writer can produce if they set their minds to it in an unemploy... err, I mean, full-time setting!


I dont really think writing 'speed' has much to do with it...I'm sure some are very fast...words and stories can definitely pour out. It's the work that comes along the way towards publishing...rewriting, honestly assessing, editing, the back and forth, etc.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

9MMare said:


> ...It's the work that comes along the way towards publishing...rewriting, honestly assessing, editing, the back and forth, etc.


I know all about all the steps.  I'm a writer.

The point of time availability stands, though. A part-time has less time to do all those things than a full-timer.


----------



## unitbit (Jul 22, 2011)

It definitely is amazing at the rate but I also wonder how does the quality stand up...


----------



## Sharon Red (Jul 23, 2011)

Ben White said:


> I'd just like to say that the existence of this thread made me smile.


haha me too


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Agreed. I have read some very very good 'first novels.' But by no means does that mean that the author hasnt been writing and writing over the yrs.
> 
> There's a distinction between _writing _ and _publishing_. By the law of averages, an easier, faster, less overseen publishing process allows for alot more writing to be published that may not be of the same quality as those that get more oversight. Not only that, a writer can learn from that evaluation and scrutiny.
> 
> Jus sayin'


Agree overall with the law of averages statement.

Re: Evanovich and other similar writers: In fairness she was writing for a different audience with her earlier books. The one I read, although it had a mystery element, was written for a category romance publisher. The style requirements and plot requirements are completely different. Writers who write for certain publishers do get guidelines -- there must be a kiss by page X, there must be HEA, there must be x, y, z. That sort of thing. While I have no idea what the guidelines were for her earlier books, I do know she was writing for a completely different audience--and probably figuring out as a writer what she wanted to write and where her strongest skillset existed. (She may or may not have been on strict guidelines. From what I read on her bio/interviews, she was submitting blind when one of her books was first accepted.)

There are a number of writers who started out with formula romance and moved to other genres. It's a way to get experience and that guidance you talked about. My example with Baen and short stories is kind of the same thing--a way to get experience and guidance by learning certain techniques and formulas.

Thankfully there are a number of ways to climb the mountain!!!


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I agree with Colin, way back on page one, that a lot of eBooks are slimmer than the paper books you pick up. There is an emphasis on cranking them out, partly, I think, due to J.A. Konrath's thesis that the best way to increase your sales is to release more titles. It may increase sales, even of ALL your titles, but it doesn't always make for satisfying reads.


----------



## AKLoggie (Aug 13, 2011)

Jon Olson said:


> I agree with Colin, way back on page one, that a lot of eBooks are slimmer than the paper books you pick up. There is an emphasis on cranking them out, partly, I think, due to J.A. Konrath's thesis that the best way to increase your sales is to release more titles. It may increase sales, even of ALL your titles, but it doesn't always make for satisfying reads.


In general, I don't mind a shorter novel, but I really want to know that going into the read, to set my expectations. Especially if there are excerpts at the back. Tell me how many words in the description and I'm a happy camper.

I just got burnt by this on a book I read last night. Killer opening, fizzled and then...just ended. And then several pages of poorly formatted excerpts from...other authors? I don't even know because they weren't labeled well. Blerg! Argh!


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

It may have been mentioned but I also think some of the ease for putting out books is that certain genres are just a bit more formulaic. Not knocking it since I'm fine with an old familiar friend but because of this they are easier to write.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Fayrlite,

I have to disagree a bit. I'm not sticking up necessarily for writers who stick to a formulaic plot structure, necessarily, but... I don't think a formulaic plot structure or a non-formulaic plot structure reduces significantly the amount of time required to craft a novel of any given length.

Formulaic or non-formulaic, 40,000 words or 80,000 words or 120,000 words are still 40,000 words or 80,000 words or 120,000 words.

And really, to be honest, even "literary novels" have formulaic plot structures of their own. It's not a phenomenon unique to genre-driven novels.

Even writers like John Irving, who takes 2-3 years per novel, and crafts them carefully, and plans them extensively, has ended up repeating himself, with recurrent themes done over and over again, similar story points, etc.

So I think it's a bit too simple to say that only genre writers use formula, and that makes writing a work of a given length easier.

So what do I think the difference is?

Well, this might be controversial to say, but...

1) Not all writers are of equal skill. Some writers are just better than others.

2) Some writers revise enough to reach a lower bar of personal satisfaction. Other writers revise extensively, and almost endlessly. Others fall somewhere between.

I could go on, but a list of two factors is enough for the moment.

You know, it's easy for people to post these open-ended, unanswerable questions like, "...but I wonder about the quality?" and thus shed a negative light on all indies.

But not all indies are the same. Not all indies pump out ten 40K short novels per year. Not all are of "quality-wondering" iffiness.

But with one open-ended question, the shadow is cast. And a whole group of writers, all of varying skill levels, experience, talent and time availability levels get doubted with the same broad sweeping "I wonder."

Here's a cure for "I wonder" -- Read some of them.

And I think most readers will find what I've found.

Some indie writers are very good.

Some are not as inventive, but solidly entertaining.

Some are not that worthwhile.

Some are unreadable.

But I get that spread from traditionally published authors, too. And slower authors, also.

What the actual percentages are in each category depends on the reader's personal preferences, at least in part.

I mean, it's easy to point fingers at the most productive folks, and suggest they're not good by "wondering" about the quality.

But instead of reading the negative reviews only, or looking at the fact of his 10 novels published in under a year, you know what I did?

I actually TRIED a John Locke book. SAVING RACHEL, to be specific.

And it was exactly what Locke intended it to be: a light, fun read. 40K words or so. Not a massive commitment like UNDER THE DOME. But considering his actual competition in the crime novel category are folks like Elmore Leonard, Jeff Lindsey, and folks like that... I can't honestly say I'd have felt more entertained by those guys. Even though their novels are longer and come our far less often.

Was he brilliant? Was he Stephen King or John Irving? No. Wasn't trying to be, either.

But in the same neighborhood as Hammett? Leonard? Lindsey? Yup. Why not?

One of the most revered "novels" of the 20th century is Ray Bradbury's FAHRENHEIT 451. It clocks in just under 50,000 words, and about the same length as the average Donovan Creed tome by Locke. So length doesn't dictate quality.

Neither does the amount of time one takes to write... Bradbury wrote F451 in a week, if I recall correctly. Maybe two. Back when writers only had manual typewriters.

Locke takes longer than Bradbury. Should I "wonder about the quality" of Bradbury's F451?

Or is it possible that quality isn't necessarily attached to taking three years to release each new novel?

And here's an historical factoid: some of our most revered writers of the past wrote to make money, on a deadline, with far less revising than most indie novelists engage in...

Charles Dickens is a prime example. Most of his novels were serialized in monthly magazines, some in monthly chapter books, and were written to keep his rent paid, not for "high art's sake."

A lot of writers, contemporaries of Dickens, wrote the same way he did and are forgotten, because their skill was lower than his. Some who took far longer to write than he did, and their works are not remembered.

Should we wonder about Dickens' quality? Because he wrote in short bursts, on a monthly basis, to make his rent?

William Shakespeare was so massively productive that stodgy, ivory-tower scholars are still inventing theories as to why some rich noble must have written his plays for him, or at least some of them. They just can't conceive of a writer of Shakespeare's quality not taking eons to produce even 1/4th of the work.

But that's easy: he needed to keep putting butts in the seats of the Globe Theater to keep his rent paid, his actors paid, and everyone around him, including himself, eating and out of debt.

He wrote fast, but he wrote well.

Should we wonder about his quality (and question his authorship) because he was able to write well, quickly?

Oh, and, little secret? Shakespeare used formulaic plot structures, too. HAMLET is hardly the first or only "revenge play" in Victorian England. It just happened to be one of the best. ROMEO AND JULIET was a familiar formula, too. So was TAMING OF THE SHREW and countless others. Did that make those plays easier for Shakespeare to write? Did it make them quicker to write, or of "wonder-able" quality?

History is our reply.

Just food for thought offered up for everyone in general to consider.

Maybe the assumptions we begin with are the real problem...


----------



## *Sandy Harper* (Jun 22, 2011)

Readers are the ultimate judge. It's not the time to write a book but quality that really matters in the long run.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> Readers are the ultimate judge. It's not the time to write a book but quality that really matters in the long run.


Precisely.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I don't know why anyone would be disturbed how much or fast an author wrote.  Some are fast and some are slower and some write more and some write less.  EL Doctorow is a slow writer and Stephen King a fairly fast writer.  Some need a year, some need 5 years and some need 4 months to write a story.  It's all how good the story is, not the other stuff.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I'm really interested in all the thoughtful comments on this thread. In fact it's great! I especially agree with those who say that writing is a learning curve, no matter if it's your first, fifth, or tenth book. The experience is always challenging (to varying degrees), and some books will resonate with readers more than others.

I remember comments about Stephen King: some of his novels were loved, others not at all. I think it's the same with Sue Grafton who's been writing the alaphet mysteries for years, and is almost done. Some of her books were better received than others, but isn't this true for many writers who are attempting to create a memorable body of work? Really, it's all one giant, creative experiment in trying to tell an entertaining, compelling story with new twists on old plots and riveting characters we won't soon forget.

And I agree with the comment that, at the end of the day, fast or slow doesn't matter. Maybe it comes down to this: did the writer give the book her/his best, and did the readers enjoy the ride?


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> Agree overall with the law of averages statement.
> 
> Re: Evanovich and other similar writers: In fairness she was writing for a different audience with her earlier books. The one I read, although it had a mystery element, was written for a category romance publisher. The style requirements and plot requirements are completely different. Writers who write for certain publishers do get guidelines -- there must be a kiss by page X, there must be HEA, there must be x, y, z. That sort of thing. While I have no idea what the guidelines were for her earlier books, I do know she was writing for a completely different audience--and probably figuring out as a writer what she wanted to write and where her strongest skillset existed. (She may or may not have been on strict guidelines. From what I read on her bio/interviews, she was submitting blind when one of her books was first accepted.)
> 
> ...


Your comments re: Evanovich specifically are probably meant for someone else. I've tried once or twice to read her and didnt finish. It was a few yrs ago, so not sure what 'era' that was of her writing. It's probably just me but when I'm reading crime/mystery, I tend to be really focused on the story and details.... I tend to bleep right over the humor as a distraction. Tongue-in-cheek for me, in that genre, usually doesnt work. Same with J.A. Jance and Carl Hiassen (who I sooo wanted to like)...not that they are bad writers, just that I find their style distracting.

There have been a few humor-laden crime/mysteries that I liked...Ludlum's 'Road to Gandolfo' comes to mind (what is that, action/suspense?).


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Your comments re: Evanovich specifically are probably meant for someone else. I've tried once or twice to read her and didnt finish. It was a few yrs ago, so not sure what 'era' that was of her writing. It's probably just me but when I'm reading crime/mystery, I tend to be really focused on the story and details.... I tend to bleep right over the humor as a distraction. Tongue-in-cheek for me, in that genre, usually doesnt work. Same with J.A. Jance and Carl Hiassen (who I sooo wanted to like)...not that they are bad writers, just that I find their style distracting.
> 
> There have been a few humor-laden crime/mysteries that I liked...Ludlum's 'Road to Gandolfo' comes to mind (what is that, action/suspense?).


I fully expected to like Carl Hiassen because I LOVE humor. Bored me to tears and it was supposedly one of his best that I tried. Okay, okay, it wasn't that bad, but I wasn't enticed to try more. My mom LOVES mysteries and she didn't like Evanovich's books at all. She found them "Silly." Well, yeah... 

I did a post on the "reader learning curve" for wont of a better term. It would be interesting to see/know if at a later time in life your tastes change and you end up liking these types of books. In truth I am not sure I would enjoy some of the books on my favorite lists NEARLY so much now as I did when I was younger! Although I think I'd still really like Evanovich because I still love humor!

In one of my cozy groups, we had a discussion about how some of us like a romantic subplot--and others just detest it and others find it 'okay'. Those who detest it hate that the romance can get "in the way" of the plot! I guess humor is the same for you--just a distraction!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

During his productive life of approximately 50 years, Isaac Asimov produced some 500 books of fiction and non-fiction. I believe that averages out to around 10 a year.

For shame!


----------



## MosesSiregarIII (Jul 15, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> During his productive life of approximately 50 years, Isaac Asimov produced some 500 books of fiction and non-fiction. I believe that averages out to around 10 a year.
> 
> For shame!


Wow.


----------



## marimorimo (Aug 8, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> My mom LOVES mysteries and she didn't like Evanovich's books at all. She found them "Silly."


Don't know about your mom, but I don't read Evanovich's books for the mystery. I read them for the silliness


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> During his productive life of approximately 50 years, Isaac Asimov produced some 500 books of fiction and non-fiction. I believe that averages out to around 10 a year.
> 
> For shame!


That's because he didn't have reality TV and the internet. What the hell was he supposed to do in his free time?


----------



## Rick Chesler (Jul 17, 2010)

A lot of it (the seemingly impossible pace) is people who have written a bunch of novels over the years or decades, and now with the advent Kindle, they're taking the attitude of "what have I got to lose" and publishing all the books NYC rejected one right after the next for Kindle, just to "see how they do." And most will languish in obscurity, but a few manage to sell modestly, while fewer still manage to really breakout.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> During his productive life of approximately 50 years, Isaac Asimov produced some 500 books of fiction and non-fiction. I believe that averages out to around 10 a year.
> 
> For shame!


WOW!!! That is impressive.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> That's because he didn't have reality TV and the internet. What the hell was he supposed to do in his free time?


You have a point there. Lots of free time and less to distract from writing. If you figure it this way, 500 words (a fairly easy daily writing goal) will produce 182,500 words per year or roughly 2.3 80k word novels in a year. If you had the time to write 1k or even more per day that 10 novels a year becomes possible.

Even with that said, that's an impressive amount of work!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Katie Salidas said:


> You have a point there. Lots of free time and less to distract from writing. If you figure it this way, 500 words (a fairly easy daily writing goal) will produce 182,500 words per year or roughly 2.3 80k word novels in a year. If you had the time to write 1k or even more per day that 10 novels a year becomes possible.


When you list it like this, I feel like a slacker.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Krista D. Ball said:


> When you list it like this, I feel like a slacker.


Yeah, I totally feel like a slacker now... And yet I'm still playing around on the internet. LoL.


----------



## authorandystraka (May 4, 2011)

Look, does anyone really care how fast the book was written as long as it is a quality product?  (I'm not talking about "literary" merit per se, but professionally produced, entertaining stories that readers enjoy.)

I have traditionally published a number of novels, three with a major house where the expectation was to produce "a book a year."  I have also served several stints as a judge for a number of crime fiction awards, so quality is important to me.  That said, I find it hard to stigmatize any group of authors, simply because they may write at a faster rate.  Good books are good books and poor books are poor books.  As a reader, I'll judge each title on its individual merits or lack thereof.  

As a writer, I always strive to produce the best quality product possible, whether traditionally published or as an indie, and I produce them as fast as I can without compromising quality.  I think most authors do the same.  Yes, I'm sure there are some out there "churning" out mediocre books just for the sake of filling their bibliography.  But I trust readers to give these books their due--poor sales and poor reviews.  

Let me say that one more time.  I trust readers.  Yes, I'm sure there are some who will lap up any swill that comes down the pike.  But the vast, vast majority are intelligent, discerning people. (After all, they're reading books, aren't they?)  I don't think we need to hand wring too much about low quality books because the majority of readers will ultimately reject them.  If some find that opinion naive, I don't apologize.  I'm with JA Konrath: readers are the best literary judges and gatekeepers in the world.  They're smart enough to sort out the good indies from the bad indies just as they have sorted out the good traditionally published books from the bad traditionally published books for years.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

I am so amazed when I read about writers like Isaac Asimov. What an accomplishment!


----------



## Evelyn Collier (Jul 7, 2011)

Some indie books are dire with terrible plotting, formatting, spelling and punctuation. However the great advantage of Kindle is that it offers generous samples and you can get your money back if you really hated a book. Not sure if they ask for reasons before granting a refund, because I've always read the samples and can  judge the quality from the first few pages.

I've also read some brilliant indie books on Kindle, so I guess it all balances. It's a shame that some people put up rubbish, because it gives the whole concept of indies a bad name.

My advise to anyone is to read the samples.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

marimorimo said:


> Don't know about your mom, but I don't read Evanovich's books for the mystery. I read them for the silliness


Ain't that the truth!!!


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

David Alastair Hayden said:


> I agree with this statement SO MUCH!
> 
> I don't trust those who hand out badges. They usually have agendas.
> 
> Length does not equal quality. Some of the greatest works of literature (if you agree with that concept) were written incredibly fast. Speed is irrelevant.


Is this a good time to say "We don't need no steenking badges!"?


----------



## *Sandy Harper* (Jun 22, 2011)

Elizabeth Black said:


> Is this a good time to say "We don't need no steenking badges!"?


What badges are we talking about! I have seen this brought up again and again.

Now in relation to the topic: Why do we care how long it takes to write a book? Everyone doesn't write at the same speed. It will vary from person to person. Finally it boils down to the reader whether they like it or not.


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> What badges are we talking about! I have seen this brought up again and again.
> 
> Now in relation to the topic: Why do we care how long it takes to write a book? Everyone doesn't write at the same speed. It will vary from person to person. Finally it boils down to the reader whether they like it or not.


I don't know what the badges are about either. That was just the first thing that popped in my head. LOL

I don't care how long it takes to write a book. I care if it's a good read. Just because someone cranks out three novels per year doesn't make that person a bad writer. It only makes that person prolific. Some authors can take years to write a bomb that's picked up by one of the big six. Plus it's all a matter of personal taste, isn't it? Some readers rave about one writer whilst other readers can't stand anything flying from that writer's fingertips whether it took the writer five months or five years to write the book. Just give me something entertaining to read. I don't care how long it took the author to write it.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I applaud Asimov's accomplishment, but I'm guessing he didn't have to deal with the daily grind of raising kids, lol.



> I fully expected to like Carl Hiassen because I LOVE humor.


I love Haissen! But I'm not crazy about other humor writers like Terry Pratchett, and my husband thinks he's da bomb!

I'm actually finding this thread a relief since I sometimes feel like I am a very slow writer. Two books a year would be amazingly quick for me. Proabably, too quick.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Now, we're talking a bit more reasonably about this topic! Whew!

And like I said, if anyone "wonders" about quality, there's an easy fix ... read, or at least sample, that author's actual work.

That's all it takes! It's easy! No need to cast aspersions! No need to paint all indies as one Borg-like community hive-mind!

We are all individuals.

Some better, some still learning, some good, some bad, some very prolific, some... less so.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

mscott9985 said:


> I applaud Asimov's accomplishment, but I'm guessing he didn't have to deal with the daily grind of raising kids, lol.


That's what womanfolk are for.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

While I consider myself a fairly quick writer I find that I need gestation time for my books..physical elapsed time for me to "mull over" what was writtein. In so doing I'll come of with ways to connect various components and tie things together that I couldn't do if I just got it all down at once and hit send. It is during this "down time" when I'm just letting things come to me that some of my best ideas emerge.


----------



## mikelewis (May 31, 2011)

I completely agree with this.  I have been forced to spend the last few days on the couch after a cataract operation so haven't been able to write. I've been thinking about the latest two books instead and come up with an idea which links two parts of the book together and improves the plot.

You need the mulling time to come up with the best approach.  This is why I really don't understand the "tidy up the first draft and done" approach.  There is always something you can do to improve the first draft now you've got the ideas down on paper.

Mike


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

mikelewis said:


> You need the mulling time to come up with the best approach. This is why I really don't understand the "tidy up the first draft and done" approach. There is always something you can do to improve the first draft now you've got the ideas down on paper.
> 
> Mike


I don't think many indies just tidy up the first draft and then publish. Not the serious ones, anyway.

And mulling time, very important to the process, can happen at any point in the process.

My Ember Cole series is a concept I've been developing in different forms and formats for probably seven years now, for example. And I'm just now, finally, a few weeks away from releasing the first installment, SHADA.

By contrast, I have a couple other concepts that are very new and have even attempted to write... a Paranormal Pizza Delivery Mystery series, and a series of mysteries revolving around a crime-solving Messianic Rabbi, for example... and though I bat 'em around like a cat with a toy, and have even started drafts, I'm probably years of mulling away from really even getting to a complete first draft on them.

So mulling can be all the thought that goes into something before a first draft is ever completed, too.  Let alone later drafts...

Good authors think and re-think throughout the creative process.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> During his productive life of approximately 50 years, Isaac Asimov produced some 500 books of fiction and non-fiction. I believe that averages out to around 10 a year.
> 
> For shame!


"If the doctor told me I had six minutes to live, I'd type a little faster." _Isaac Asimov_


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

> Is this a good time to say "We don't need no steenking badges!"?





*Sandy Harper* said:


> What badges are we talking about! I have seen this brought up again and again.


Just as a point of reference, the first quote is a line from an old 70s movie, one of the Cheech & Chong ones.. iirc, they were pretending to be cops...sans badges. I think Cheech actually said the line, that's the voice in my head saying the line whenever I see it written at least.


----------



## Shetlander (Mar 10, 2009)

Elyssanda said:


> Just as a point of reference, the first quote is a line from an old 70s movie, one of the Cheech & Chong ones.. iirc, they were pretending to be cops...sans badges. I think Cheech actually said the line, that's the voice in my head saying the line whenever I see it written at least.


Actually the quote (and often misquote) originated with The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> What badges are we talking about! I have seen this brought up again and again.
> 
> Now in relation to the topic: Why do we care how long it takes to write a book? Everyone doesn't write at the same speed. It will vary from person to person. Finally it boils down to the reader whether they like it or not.


The badges (yes, via Sierra Madre, though Cheech and Chong) I think actually was introduced by my reply to your post, below:



*Sandy Harper* said:


> There are many authors who came from amazon shorts. Now they publish ebooks as indie authors. Since there is no editing, so anyone can publish anything. I don't know how long can this lost. But it is very unfair for real authors who spend years to write a book.


I was just struck by the whole "real authors" idea, so I said I was glad not to be the one handing out those badges. Then it got fun from there.


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

Shetlander said:


> Actually the quote (and often misquote) originated with The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.


Yup, that's the movie I was thinking of. The actual quote is "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."

And I will read anything as long as it's good.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

When in doubt, I always side with Weird Al:


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

Its been said, but only in the last year or two has being self published become this easy and inexpensive.  Most have been writing for years if not decades before putting their work on Amazon.

For the amount of time it takes to write a book, it's all relative.  One of my favorite authors Michael Stackpole said it takes him about 200 hours to create a manuscript.  If writing is your full time job (40 hours a week) then a novel can be produced in five weeks.  If you have a full time job other than writing, and can only write for four hours a week, then it will take you a year to produce a novel.

When I sat down to write Requiem, it took me about 250 hours to write the first draft.  I did this in five weeks writing every day between 2-12 hours a day.  I put in a lot more time at the end than I did at the beginning.  It took another 100+ hours of working with editors over another seven weeks before it was finished.  If the time is available, three months to create a book is not unreasonable.

Expecting an author to live on a $10,000 advance for a book their publisher won't release for 18 months before they can start to work it off and collect royalties is disturbing.


----------



## yomamma (Feb 10, 2011)

SBJones said:


> Its been said, but only in the last year or two has being self published become this easy and inexpensive. Most have been writing for years if not decades before putting their work on Amazon.
> 
> For the amount of time it takes to write a book, it's all relative. One of my favorite authors Michael Stackpole said it takes him about 200 hours to create a manuscript. If writing is your full time job (40 hours a week) then a novel can be produced in five weeks. If you have a full time job other than writing, and can only write for four hours a week, then it will take you a year to produce a novel.
> 
> ...


The whole 'you can't live on your advance' argument is flawed logic, I feel (and this is my opinion).

You just said that you wrote your book in 3 months. Let's say this is a NY contracted novel that you got a 10k advance on. That means that you were paid $3333 a month for that work. It's just that the payment doesn't come for a very long time. That's the thing with being contracted - you are your own boss, so you determine the schedule that you get the work done. All they give you is the deadline to turn it in by.

No one is asking you to make it your full time job or to survive on what you are contracted to work on. If you choose to, that's your business. I have two NY contracts and a full time job. Why? Because I write fast and I choose to support myself with a full time job.

A contract payment for a novel is not necessarily intended to be living wages. It is simply a payment for a product. Only you can decide if you're going to live on it or not.

As far as the main topic, I am torn. If my favorite authors (Kresley Cole or Meljean Brook) turned out a new book every month and the quality did not suffer, I would be happy as could be. I think it's when book after book is turned out with declining quality (and we see this in some prolific NYT Bestsellers as well) that I get upset, as a fan. There are a few authors I won't read anymore - not because they're turning out 6 books a year (which can be common in romance authors that are extremely popular and write for multiple houses) but because I feel like the quality and effort is not there anymore. If they were six awesome books? I'd be thrilled.


----------



## Linda Andrews (Aug 16, 2011)

I don't mind the rate that indie authors publish. Because if I find an author I like or a series I like I don't have wait long to read the next one and the next one. 

Also, I don't think the writing speed is always the determining quality of a book. For me, working on a book every day actually increases the speed which I turn out the story, providing a positive feedback loop. Do I put the chapters aside before I return to them? Yes, I also have two editors who review it before printing, just like my publishers do.

Aside from previously published backlists, authors may have written x number of books in a series for agent y, but they never sold. The author still believes in the books and now has an opportunity to see them in pixels/print.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Okay so all us indies have come out and said how speed isn't the issue, but it needs to be admitted--sometimes Speed IS a red flag and CAN mean that an author is "stuffing the channel" with books that are not necessarily ready.

I'm sure *none* of us are guilty of ANYTHING of the sort, but it is not only going to happen, it is happening.  Some authors are unwisely putting out a lot of material without going the "distance" with editing, plotting and so on.

It's nice that we had a chance to air out the fact that some of the material has been written and vetted and re-written--and was just waiting for the chance at daylight.  But it is important to note that sometimes speedily putting out every sacred word (whether trad or indie) can be a sign of sloppiness.


----------



## HeatherCashman (Jul 30, 2011)

In this case, I believe only quality can tell. It is obvious that there are indies out there who do only "polish" the first draft and make a bad name for those who put time, money, and a lot of energy into their manuscripts. My Epic Fantasy is always going to take more time than a 150 page romance. That's not to put shame to the romance. People love them, and they sell. But that's not what I write or how. I believe if you are happy with the quality of your work, that's the best you can do.


----------



## kchughez (Jun 29, 2011)

My 1st drafts were done in 3 months, but editing and revisions took another 3 months.

~KC


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

For me, it's a combination of factors:

1. I spent 10 years writing before I decided to become an indie author, so I have accumulated a considerable unpublished backlist.
2. I have split longer works into shorter ones, so a 150,000 word novel becomes three 50,000 word novels.
3. Now that I am making money writing, I can finally afford to write full time, and it's amazing how much faster you can finish a book when you can work on it 8 hours a day.
4. The more I write, the more proficient I become, and the less editing and revision the novels need.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Tara Maya said:


> For me, it's a combination of factors:
> 
> 1. I spent 10 years writing before I decided to become an indie author, so I have accumulated a considerable unpublished backlist.
> 2. I have split longer works into shorter ones, so a 150,000 word novel becomes three 50,000 word novels.
> ...


I'm with you on items 1-3.

On item 4, as a fellow writer, I can say that I might go with "less," but I think even the best writers need an editor. One who isn't afraid to suggest changes... sometimes significant ones.

One of my beta readers for SHADA has challenged me to make my upcoming thin novel (29,500 words) even thinner by about 10-20 percent. A challenge I'll probably accept, because it may improve the pacing of the novel.

Getting people who are unafraid to say things like that is INVALUABLE.

Stephen King is rarely edited by his editors anymore on that level. And as wonderful as King is, he needs that kind of editor. (And isn't getting it.)

So yeah, if King needs an editor despite over 60 novels and 40 years in the biz... so do we indies.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> Okay so all us indies have come out and said how speed isn't the issue, but it needs to be admitted--sometimes Speed IS a red flag and CAN mean that an author is "stuffing the channel" with books that are not necessarily ready.
> 
> I'm sure *none* of us are guilty of ANYTHING of the sort, but it is not only going to happen, it is happening. Some authors are unwisely putting out a lot of material without going the "distance" with editing, plotting and so on.
> 
> It's nice that we had a chance to air out the fact that some of the material has been written and vetted and re-written--and was just waiting for the chance at daylight. But it is important to note that sometimes speedily putting out every sacred word (whether trad or indie) can be a sign of sloppiness.


I haven't written squat, quickly, slowly, or otherwise and I reject the premise.

The question isn't how quickly one publishes but whether one puts in the effort to make it a quality work. Writing something slowly is no more a guarantee of quality than writing quickly is a guarantee of quality's lack.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

mikelewis said:


> I completely agree with this. I have been forced to spend the last few days on the couch after a cataract operation so haven't been able to write. I've been thinking about the latest two books instead and come up with an idea which links two parts of the book together and improves the plot.
> 
> You need the mulling time to come up with the best approach. This is why I really don't understand the "tidy up the first draft and done" approach. There is always something you can do to improve the first draft now you've got the ideas down on paper.
> 
> Mike


Earlier this year, I read a book on writing by a respected writer/teacher, here in BC, named Betsy Warland. She writes that one of the most important aspects of writing is pre-writing...thinking about what you want to say, making connections, mulling things over, and then getting into the right mindframe (some of us go for walks), before your fingers touch the keyboard.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Sometimes it can work that way, but a lot of times stories and even novels simply come to me in a flash, and I just sit down and start writing. What has happened, obviously, is that things have been mulled over in the subconscious part of my mind for months or even years, connections being made, clarity being sought. But then it all comes slopping out like concrete from a mixer.

The real amount of writing time isn't in the first draft, so far as I'm concerned. That usually goes pretty fast, especially when it happens in the way I just described . The real deal is the later drafts, which can be gruelling and exhausting. But it's worth the effort to get something in print that you're genuinely proud of.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Gregory Lynn said:


> I haven't written squat, quickly, slowly, or otherwise and I reject the premise.
> 
> The question isn't how quickly one publishes but whether one puts in the effort to make it a quality work. Writing something slowly is no more a guarantee of quality than writing quickly is a guarantee of quality's lack.


Agreed, you can overthink and overedit a novel. There's a point where you have to say "it's done." If people are buying the books, then they probably have spent enough time on the book.


----------



## Iain Manson (Apr 3, 2011)

Not having read all of the posts in this thread, I may well just repeat what others have said. If so, I will shut myself in a room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver, and never bother anyone again.

But before doing so, I'd like to echo Ryne's point: the sample material made available by Kindle should tell you whether or not a book is likely to be worth reading. How long it took to write is hardly the issue.

Speed of composition is not necessarily a guide to quality of writing. Georges Simenon wrote ten _Maigret_ novels in 1931 alone, devoting just twelve days to each one; people still go looking for them. By contrast, James Joyce spent seventeen years writing _Finnegans Wake_, and everyone has been hiding from it ever since.

Most remarkable of all, it took Tolstoy three years to write the opening chapter of _War and Peace_, and three weeks to write the rest. "Once I'd got the beginning right," he said (in Russian), "the rest was easy."*

*I just made that bit up. Did you seriously think that Tolstoy wrote more than half a million words in twenty days or so? Come off it!"


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Gregory Lynn said:


> I haven't written squat, quickly, slowly, or otherwise and I reject the premise.
> 
> *The question isn't how quickly one publishes but whether one puts in the effort to make it a quality work. Writing something slowly is no more a guarantee of quality than writing quickly is a guarantee of quality's lack.*


I like this thought process!


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

"Getting people who are unafraid to say things like that is INVALUABLE."

100% gold.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

mikelewis said:


> I completely agree with this. I have been forced to spend the last few days on the couch after a cataract operation so haven't been able to write. I've been thinking about the latest two books instead and come up with an idea which links two parts of the book together and improves the plot.
> 
> You need the mulling time to come up with the best approach. This is why I really don't understand the "tidy up the first draft and done" approach. There is always something you can do to improve the first draft now you've got the ideas down on paper.
> 
> Mike


This assumes that how you write is the best approach for _every_ writer in creation. As someone who sweats over a first draft and can't understand the "just throw everything you vomit up on the page" type of first draft writing, my first drafts do not need that much work. While they need a good edit by an editor which I consider a bit more than "tidying up", none the less what ends up published is not very far from my first draft.

There is a oft-quoted discussion between Asimov and Heinlein in which Asimov complained about having to do edits. Heinlein asked him why he didn't get it right the first time.

Edit: And by the way, if you only write 1,000 words a day and don't write every day of the year, let's say you only write 250 days a year.. That is 250,000 words. If that isn't at least two novels, you're publishing awfully long novels.

But according to some that is indies being... whatever the horrible thing it is we are now.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Iain Manson said:


> Not having read all of the posts in this thread...


It's okay; they were written quickly; they probably suck.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

Gregory Lynn said:


> It's okay; they were written quickly; they probably suck.


Love it!


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

I have written short stories that took weeks, I have written longer (and better) ones that came out pretty much in one sitting (maybe 4 hours). I have written a book which took three years. I have written another which took two months.

My experience is that the time you put into a piece of writing often bears little relation to the quality of the writing.

Some writers write quick. Some write slow. Doesn't mean one's output will be a higher quality than the other's. As I gain more and more experience, I find that I am both writing better AND writing faster.

Having said all of that, self-publishers have a huge responsibility. They have the ability to publish whatever they like, whenever they like. They must not abuse it. They must realize that their name is their brand, and if they rush something out, readers won't forgive them. We owe it to our readers to only publish our very best work.

I have been self-publishing for just over three months. I have three titles out, and a fourth coming soon. That might seem like I am "churning them out", but what you are seeing is the fruits of over five years of writing. Many self-publishers are in the same boat.

On top of the stuff I have published, I have a full novel ready to go that was written between 2006 and 2009. I have another novel part-written that I was working on in 2010. And I have a whole bunch of short stories at varying stages of completion that I have been working on now and then over the last 12 months.

With a good run of luck and work, I could have all of those out in the next six months. But again, it is work where the foundations were laid, and the heavy lifting of research and outlining and plotting has already been done.

I don't think you can put people into boxes. Some writers take years and write crap. Some can write a novel in a month and it can be brilliant.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> Agreed, you can overthink and overedit a novel. There's a point where you have to say "it's done." If people are buying the books, then they probably have spent enough time on the book.


Agreed. You can edit to the end of time. There is always ways to "change" a book - but does each change make it better or just move words around on the page? Knowing "when its done" is one of the hardest part of being a writer you have to weigh small incremental improvements made during a point of diminishing returns from getting to the next story.

Having multiple books is a boon for both the author and reader. Finding the right balance is one that is learned with experience and reader feedback.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> Okay so all us indies have come out and said how speed isn't the issue, but it needs to be admitted--sometimes Speed IS a red flag and CAN mean that an author is "stuffing the channel" with books that are not necessarily ready.


Exactly!


----------



## VickiT (May 12, 2010)

On average, a novel takes me a year to write... and that's fulltime. Each to his own, but I do wish I wrote faster. 

Cheers
Vicki


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

I've been considering this issue carefully and have come to the conclusion that I AM disturbed, as well as being appalled, shocked and outraged.  Something should be done.

Now if you'll excuse me I should be working.  In the time it's taken to write this post I could've churned out two novellas and a short story.


----------



## VickiT (May 12, 2010)

Ben White said:


> I've been considering this issue carefully and have come to the conclusion that I AM disturbed, as well as being appalled, shocked and outraged. Something should be done.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me I should be working. In the time it's taken to write this post I could've churned out two novellas and a short story.


ROFL


----------



## *Sandy Harper* (Jun 22, 2011)

Sometimes books are written at different times but published within short periods.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Couldn't care less about the rate indie authors write books.

If I like them, the more the better.

If I don't like them, I won't be reading any.

The speed at which they were written is entirely irrelevant.

I don't like 99% of traditionally published books so it's not like indie authors could do much worse.

(Also, I think people generally confuse a number of arbitrary factors that impact traditional publishing publication speed as somehow being related to writing speed. Just because your favorite author only puts out one book a year does _not_ mean he spent a year writing it.)


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

J. Tanner said:


> Couldn't care less about the rate indie authors write books.
> 
> If I like them, the more the better.
> 
> ...


Heh heh

Welcome to the Kindle boards!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> Sometimes books are written at different times but published within short periods.


 Quite true. The fact that I published _A Kingdom's Cost_ one month after _Freedom's Sword_ does NOT mean that it took a month to research, to write, and to edit.

Or I could be like GRR Martin and take 6 *coughing* years to get out a new novel. Mind you, I'd prefer his sales, but not his rate of production.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Good question!

Time is irrelevant. There are writers who take 10 years to write one book. Doesn't make it better, necessarily. 

All that really matters is whether the target audience likes the books, regardless of "quality." Lots of people love Amanda Hocking's books because she's a great storyteller, so they didn't care if the books came out fast or had typos. 

It's all very subjective. Take a look at my signature line to see where I stand on the issue of speed and quantity. But that doesn't mean quality has to suffer either. That's a question of effort and professionalism. Judge for yourself.


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

*Sandy Harper* said:


> Sometimes books are written at different times but published within short periods.


i think this makes ssense. though i'm not a writer.


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I'm not disturbed by the rate some of us indies churn out books, I'm actually kind of jealous that they have that many story ideas they feel they need to get out there for people to read. It took me 10 years for my first novella, but less than a year to write two of my novels.

I've written a lot of short stories over the years that I could put onto my computer that are currently on paper, then update them, and upload them to Smashwords, but that just seems like a lot of work to me


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

marimorimo said:


> First off, I want to clarify that I'm not here to knock on indie authors.
> 
> But I confess to feeling a bit incredulous and wary when I see an indie author with 8 full novels under his/her belt, all released within a year or two.
> 
> ...


Yes. Well, I sway between feeling disturbed and envious. 

I'm writing as fast as I can, but the quickest I can manage is a year; I like my ideas to percolate, to leave time between edits, come back to the manuscript with fresh eyes etc. I don't even have kids to feed or a day job. How do people do it? I see authors putting several books out a year and I think wth?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

_***authors, please remember we're in the Book Corner. Though this is a discussion about indies, we ask that you address the question wearing your 'reader' hat and not your 'author' hat. Specifically, do not mention by name books you have written, are writing, or plan to write. Thank you.  ***_


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

Oops, sorry. I don't often venture out of Writers Cafe and so forgot I wasn't in there.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

tkkenyon said:


> And, more germane to this thread, I wanted to point out that the reason that Stephen King started publishing under the pseudonym "Richard Bachmann" was because his publisher wouldn't publish more than 1 book per year of his, yet he was writing 2 or more novels and novellas per year. So he started a pseudonym so that he could publish them.
> 
> Lots of good writers write 2 or more novels per year plus several shorter works. Robert Reed, a SF writer who I find quite good, often has 2 short forms (incl short stories, novelettes, and novellas,) published in very good journals _every month_, plus comes out with at least one novel per year.
> 
> ...


I so want to see that movie now!


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

There are some authors I wish wrote a lot faster. There are some that I wish wrote a lot slower


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow, I don't know why I never stumbled across this thread before. On the original OP's question, no, I'm not bothered by the speed with which some indies put out their work. In many cases these are books they've been writing on for years and only recently decided to self-publish. So what seems to the casual observer like eight books being churned out within the space of months is actually the product of years of work that just happened to be released close together. 

Another point to consider is that a lot of writers here on KB put out short stories and novellas. So at first glance it might look like they've got a ton of books in their signatures but if each individual story is only 10,000 words instead of 80k, it wouldn't be hard to put out a dozen in a years' time.

And finally, I know a number of New York published authors who write several full length novels per year. But the print publication process causes the release of these books to be spaced out by a couple years. So these authors are actually writing at the same speed as the indies, they're just having to wait a long time after the books are finished for them to be released. Naturally self-published authors of ebooks don't have that kind of wait time.


----------



## Tommie Lyn (Dec 7, 2009)

Am I disturbed by the rate at which indie authors release books?

No.


----------



## Scott Daniel (Feb 1, 2011)

I can't speak for other indie writers, but I think publishing one novel per year will be my pace. I've published a short story and a novella this year and I'm hoping to have a novel out by Christmas. But these are all projects I've had going for several years. After the novel is published, I'll be starting a new one from scratch.

With three kids, a full-time job and a house to take care of, more than a novel a year just isn't realistic. Heck, I'm not sure a novel a year is realistic. I want to produce quality over quantity. I think there is kind of goldrush mentality right now, but that will die down. Those people will fall by the wayside.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

It makes me wonder about all of the papers and books that are normally found after an author dies. How many of those would have been printed if self publishing was as easy then as it is now?


----------



## Susan Brassfield Cogan (Mar 25, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> I don't care how many books a writer churns out in a year, or if they're new or backlist. If they're good, that's all I need.


yes, however many they publish they must never break the First Iron Rule: Don't write crap.

If the books are crap, the author is writing too many. If they're good, then the author has hit her stride.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

dkazemi said:


> It makes me wonder about all of the papers and books that are normally found after an author dies. How many of those would have been printed if self publishing was as easy then as it is now?


If you are talking about previously published authors, I'd say not many. A lot are found after an author's death because the author didn't submit them, perhaps because they didn't consider them finished?


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I've 10 self-publications on Kindle, and I put them all on within the space of a few months. But most of the material in them has been in print at some stage, and actually represents the work of decades. So don't be fooled when a writer publishes a whole load of fiction quickly ... it doesn't mean that he's been writing too fast, it probably just means that he's been writing for a good long time.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

This topic is going in circles... _getting dizzy...._ **thump**


----------



## ThomasSandman (Aug 10, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> This topic is going in circles... _getting dizzy...._ **thump**


don't they always?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'll take that as my cue:  topic closed.


----------

