Is e-publishing a bubble?

J. Tanner said:

Why should your standard of quality or trade publishing's standard be more important than mine?.

Click to expand...

Who says it is? I only know how I choose my reading material and I've yet to read a self-published ebook (or print book) that was halfway decent.

But saying "To hell with the gatekeepers!" and flooding the market with crap will make it less likely that people will even bother wading through the mire to find the one-in-a-million readable self-published book, AKA the unicorn.

People are free to self-publish if they want. But a lack of care and attention will bring self-publishing's reputation down even further.

bearilou said:

So the solution is to never try to improve?

Click to expand...

This argument presupposed that someone who gets their first publishing contract would never try to improve either. It should be a non-starter.

But to actively encourage the slushpiles to self-publish with absolutely no self-awareness that it may have been rejected for reasons that have to do with a poorly written book?

Click to expand...

I don't encourage it. I just don't begrudge the entire system because of the poor choices of some individuals using it.

How does that help those who are already trying to get their head above water in terms of public perception when garbage keeps getting introduced to the system?

Click to expand...

The Web is full of bad sites about writing. Does that tarnish AW? Or Writers Beware? Should our access to AW or WB be limited because those other sites are crap? Should we introduce curators to decide for us? What if they decide AW isn't up to their standards? Do we shrug and accept it?

The cost of this type of open access is that crap is out there too. Saying that it's worth the cost to allow it isn't defending the crap.

scarletpeaches said:

Who says it is? I only know how I choose my reading material and I've yet to read a self-published ebook (or print book) that was halfway decent.

Click to expand...

Oh, I've read a number that are quite good--and spent around 300.00 to buy one in particular.

Most of those I've been really impressed by were from people who already had very impressive publishing credentials, and who used professionals to actually produce the book.

I think a niche book is a better starting point in terms of when/what to self-publish.

And I think most writers are better off concentrating on their writing than on book production.

But I've got about twenty self-publshed books in print form that are fabulous, and worth every cent I paid.

J. Tanner said:

That system breaks down for those who never get good enough and for a small few who are good enough but aren't in the right spot at the right time. It lacks transparency.

Click to expand...

What's not transparent about being told "You're not good enough/this can't sell?" And why should someone who will never be good enough get published? It seems incredibly disrespectful to me to treat writing as something anyone can do well enough to be paid for. No one says "Well, so what if your voice isn't good enough and you can't carry a tune, you should just put your performances on YouTube!" (Which people do, but no one but the seriously delusional, e.g. Rebecca Black, expect to make money from it.) No one tells painters and illustrators and musicians and sculptors and dancers that it doesn't matter if discriminating professionals tell them they're not good enough, they're entitled to make a living at this, dammit! And if they aren't as good as the really talented folks, so what? Someone will pay money for a crappy painting by a no-name artist!

But the most zealous self-publishing advocates say exactly this to all those kids who just finished their NaNoWriMo novel and want to publish it.

If it were just something being done for fun, if you just want to see your book on Amazon.com, fine, I can understand the appeal. I have written fan fiction. There is nothing wrong with writing just for fun and being satisfied with a few "Attaboys" from readers. But to tell people that this is a viable money-maker, and that if they are serious about becoming a writer, they should focus on improving their self-promotional skills, not their writing? That's what irritates me.

I have no doubt that many self-published writers in this "bubble" probably could become good enough to be published commercially. But instead they'll drink the Konrath kool-aid, find out that they sell maybe a couple hundred copies, and give up. These are the future Heinleins and Stephen Kings who back in the day would have kept submitting, accumulating rejection slips, improving their writing, and eventually becoming publishable. Instead, now they just go straight to Smashwords or CreateSpace, hit "Publish," and are promptly engulfed in slush and most of them will never make it out. And that's sad.

I think there *are* non-commerical books that are good. I have read many. They may just be niche or have an author with some non-mainstream requirements.

Forgive me for this long-winded comment. I'm trying to sum up several ideas here.

J. Tanner, I think that's the point some people are missing. My dearest friend in all the world is a reader. He's not a writer and has no interest in how a book gets written, submitted, rejected or published. He is also 70 years old and, while some modern authors appeal to him, he has found it increasingly difficult to find books that he enjoys. He is thrilled with his Kindle Fire.

For the first time, he's able to find books to read that have not been judged by the gatekeepers who, in the past, selected what he got to read. For him, it's a simple process. A title catches his eye or he does a search on a topic. He reads the sample. If he likes it, he buys the eBook. If he doesn't, he passes on to the next one. Not much different than the old days of going into a book store and pulling books off a shelf to read the jacket description and the first few pages. Why shouldn't he read what he feels like reading? Why shouldn't he be permitted to judge for himself whether he likes a book or not instead of relying on subjective agents, editors, and book reviewers?

I think that we, as writers, tend to forget that the things we consider "bad writing" may not even register with the average reader. Oh sure, lots of the eBooks have typos and grammatical errors. So do a lot of books that have gone through the other process with gatekeepers. If a book has a great many, most readers will eventually figure it out and go find something else to read. I've noticed a trend on this thread that somehow seems to bestow an obectivity on editors and agents that they do not possess. They're people too. They are also very subjective in their likes and dislikes. They do a difficult job and I don't envy them. But to somehow place a mantle of infallibility on their craft is just as bad as claiming that all ebooks are trash.

I've also read the comment that "there are more publishers than ever before". Based on what? Micro-publishers? Some of those eBook publishers who are "better because they have gatekeepers"? How good are these gatekeepers you're touting for some of the smaller presses? I'm not asking this to be snotty but these days anyone can hang out a virtual sign and claim any kind of expertise. You do know that the Big 6 didn't use to be six at all. Are any of you old enough to remember the pre-1970s when there was a wealth of big, medium, and small publishers around? The days before the conglomerates ate up almost everybody? Not to mention the days before Borders and Barnes and Noble devoured most of the independent booksellers. The days when bookstores were able to leave a new author on the shelf for more than a month in order to give them a crack so that word of mouth might bring them some attention are long gone. Except, they appear to be coming back in the guise of the eBook.

For those who feel the only way to write is to go through the gatekeeper process, more power to you. Obviously, you are working very hard to break into a world that is one of the most competitive. Instead of pounding on those who do take the self-publishing eBook route, you should be encouraging it. Less competition with all those terribly busy agents and editors for you. I went through my fair share of it. I've been a professional technical writer for thirty years. That's my day job. I'm pretty good at it.

I've learned a great deal in these years, too. In particular, I've learned that the things I enjoy writing have no commercial appeal; or so I've been told by numerous agents and editors over that same course of thirty years. That's fine. I don't write fiction to please them. Although I'm a professional writer, I view my fiction as a hobby. I write to please myself. That I can put those books out there now for others to read who might enjoy them is just that much more satisfying. Could my books be better? Sure they could. Anyone's writing is improved by having additional sets of eyes view it since it is almost impossible to edit your own work. But, the little flaws in the books are just that. Little flaws and I was willing to epublish them at this time because they had reached an acceptable level for me. I'm sure any of the agents or editors here would rip them to shreds. Given a crack at any of the manuscripts on these boards, I'd probably shred them pretty well too.

Go back to Allen's "Rats in the Slush Pile" article. For some writers, like myself, the eBook innovation is a welcome alternative after years of effort. It's not for everyone and those who take that path need to do so with realistic expectations. But, by the same token, the things you get out of going through the older process are not for everyone either. These days, I think it's very important for every writer to sit down and really analyze why they write and what they hope to achieve. The dream of publishing a best seller is still a dream for most of us; regardless of the path. There are just too many variables that depend on luck to get a writer out of the slush pile much less onto the best seller list. That is the main point of Allen's article.

Amadan said:

What's not transparent about being told "You're not good enough/this can't sell?"

Click to expand...

I've never been told that by the trade system. I've been told a particular market isn't interested in a particular product at this time. I believe that's standard operating procedure. And for me, with persistance it's turned out someone else is interested in that product often enough.

And why should someone who will never be good enough get published?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should be. I'm saying it's worth allowing to get access to those who are good enough to meet my standards.

Your argument can be extended to ridiculous levels. The line in entirely arbitrary. Why should someone who isn't good enough to get published by the big six get published by an micro publisher? Why should someone who isn't good enough to get published in hardback get published in paperback original? Why should someone isn't good enough to get published at S&S get published at Penguin? The line currently is not drawn through any objective standard. Each of those cases, even the most absurd S&S/Penguin one can be defended the same way and I doubt you'd agree with repositioning the line in those arbitrary ways, particularly if the new line excluded you.

No one tells painters and illustrators and musicians and sculptors and dancers that it doesn't matter if discriminating professionals tell them they're not good enough, they're entitled to make a living at this, dammit!

But the most zealous self-publishing advocates say exactly this to all those kids who just finished their NaNoWriMo novel and want to publish it.

Click to expand...

Even the most hardcore indie writing advocates don't go that far in my experience. Konrath, who we likely agree is the among the most vocal, has said it explicitly--you are entitled to nothing beyond the opportunity to try. So I'm not sure who specifically is saying that (that matters.) I think detractors imply it incorrectly--perhaps some assumed I meant it here because of what I've written? (And to be fair, I think many of these advocates do go way way overboard in their criticism of trade publishing with Konrath himself being the most overboard.)

I have no doubt that many self-published writers in this "bubble" probably could become good enough to be published commercially. But instead they'll drink the Konrath kool-aid, find out that they sell maybe a couple hundred copies, and give up. These are the future Heinleins and Stephen Kings who back in the day would have kept submitting, accumulating rejection slips, improving their writing, and eventually becoming publishable. Instead, now they just go straight to Smashwords or CreateSpace, hit "Publish," and are promptly engulfed in slush and most of them will never make it out. And that's sad.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that selling a few hundred copies will crush someone's dream more than seemingly endless rejections. The persistent will persist through both systems. The weak will fall aside either way.

EngineerTiger said:

For the first time, he's able to find books to read that have not been judged by the gatekeepers who, in the past, selected what he got to read. For him, it's a simple process. A title catches his eye or he does a search on a topic. He reads the sample. If he likes it, he buys the eBook. If he doesn't, he passes on to the next one.

Click to expand...

The obvious question I can't help but ask here is: do you know for sure that most of his downloads are self-e-published? There are bazillions of commercially published books available for Kindles, and most readers aren't going to be able to distinguish them from self-published e-books if they're not into checking publisher names (which is most readers). So unless you've looked at his library and know for sure that he's mostly picking self-e-published books, this point might be moot. I'd be very curious to know.

EngineerTiger said:

I've also read the comment that "there are more publishers than ever before". Based on what?

Click to expand...

Based on how many publishers there were before the advent of the digital age that saw POD publishers springing up like Starbucks. And now with e-publishing, there are even more publishers than ever before.

Micro-publishers? Some of those eBook publishers who are "better because they have gatekeepers"? How good are these gatekeepers you're touting for some of the smaller presses?

Click to expand...

Publishing is comprised of many different kinds of publishers. As to how effective the books are that come from smaller presses, you'd need look no further than your bookstore.

And may I just say how much I detest the term "gatekeeper"? It's a derogatory term that suggests we have the keys to the kingdom and none shall pass without having the "sekrit" password. It also suggest there's some dark conspiracy to keep authors out. This is plain silly.

Commercial publishing is simply a business model whereby money is made by selling a product on the marketplace. In order to ensure maximized sales and profit, there is a higher standard of quality put into each book to attract readers, along with a lot of money put into marketing, promoting, and distribution.

Commercial publishing works because it can reach the widest audience via their contacts with media. Those publishers who have an inferior product invariably go out of business - something we witness every day. That's why it's important for authors to do their research and understand how the industry works. The more you know, the better able you are to make informed choices that will positively influence your writing career

Instead of pounding on those who do take the self-publishing eBook route, you should be encouraging it. Less competition with all those terribly busy agents and editors for you.

Click to expand...

I don't see anyone pounding on anyone for choosing to DIY. It's the ignorance that often accompanies the DIY author - such as Mrs. Howey - that gets the hackles up because the information is plain wrong.

And I don't see the need for sarcasm when discussing this issue. This isn't about competition because that is far from the case. There will always be talented authors for whom commercial publishing is a more attractive choice. The marketplace is big enough for everyone. As publishing evolves, commercial publishers must evolve as well - and we have, quite well, in fact.

In truth, there is no "better" because it's more about what is personally appropriate for each writer.

EngineerTiger said:

For those who feel the only way to write is to go through the gatekeeper process, more power to you. Obviously, you are working very hard to break into a world that is one of the most competitive. Instead of pounding on those who do take the self-publishing eBook route, you should be encouraging it. Less competition with all those terribly busy agents and editors for you.

Click to expand...

No thanks. I'd rather reach the top by being the best, not by nobbling the competition. I have more integrity than that.

EngineerTiger said:

For the first time, he's able to find books to read that have not been judged by the gatekeepers who, in the past, selected what he got to read. For him, it's a simple process. A title catches his eye or he does a search on a topic. He reads the sample. If he likes it, he buys the eBook. If he doesn't, he passes on to the next one. Not much different than the old days of going into a book store and pulling books off a shelf to read the jacket description and the first few pages. Why shouldn't he read what he feels like reading? Why shouldn't he be permitted to judge for himself whether he likes a book or not instead of relying on subjective agents, editors, and book reviewers?

Click to expand...

You can do that with commercially published ebooks. If your friend finds lots of self-published books that appeal to him, good for him, but frankly, anyone who honestly says they browse through typical self-published offerings and find it readable and worth paying money for isn't a reader whose opinion I care about.

I think that we, as writers, tend to forget that the things we consider "bad writing" may not even register with the average reader.

Click to expand...

This claim has been made before. It's bunk. Readers do notice bad writing, even if it's not at a level they are as aware of as a writer and they can't articulate what was wrong with it the way writers can talk about pacing and voice and characterization.

Oh sure, lots of the eBooks have typos and grammatical errors. So do a lot of books that have gone through the other process with gatekeepers.

Click to expand...

Oh, this one again. Yes, many, maybe most, commercially published books have at least one or two typos that managed to slip past the eyes of multiple editors and proofreaders. It happens. That is nothing like the error-ridden text of most self-published books.

If a book has a great many, most readers will eventually figure it out and go find something else to read. I've noticed a trend on this thread that somehow seems to bestow an obectivity on editors and agents that they do not possess. They're people too. They are also very subjective in their likes and dislikes. They do a difficult job and I don't envy them. But to somehow place a mantle of infallibility on their craft is just as bad as claiming that all ebooks are trash.

Click to expand...

Jeebus, will people ever get it through their heads that "ebook" != "self-published"?


And nobody has ever said editors are infallible.

callalily61 said:

But IMO it's quite the sour-grapes attitude to swipe at those of us who've worked for years and accumulated years of rejections to get past those very gatekeepers you disparage.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify what part of her post you're interpreting as disparging to the gatekeepers?

I'm genuinely interested because I don't see it. (I have my stack of rejections and acceptances that should give me street cred as one of those being supposedly swiped. )The fact that Reader A might prefer to read a book that Gatekeeper A rejected in no way disparaging. Even extending that to Reader A might prefer to read a book that Gatekeepers A-Z rejected still is not disparaging to them.

(I think she overstates the case very slightly in regards to a few grammatical issues in a few trade-publishing books being basically equivalent to the grammatical horror-show in a lot of self-pubbed products but beyond that the post seems very even-handed to me after rereading.)

scarletpeaches said:

But saying "To hell with the gatekeepers!" and flooding the market with crap will make it less likely that people will even bother wading through the mire to find the one-in-a-million readable self-published book, AKA the unicorn.

Click to expand...

Based on what? Have people stopped using YouTube or the internet in general because of the vast spread of quality and the majority of it being agreeably substandard? The closest precidents seem to be going in the opposite direction of your claim. (I never hear anyone arguing that a bigger bookstore means too many books they don't like are being published; They flock to them for greater selection.)

And to be clear, I'm not saying "to hell with the gatekeepers" (though some do and I argue with them too--notably Konrath on his blog who has been quite open to reasoned discussion in my experience.) I'm glad the gatekeepers are there doing what they do. They serve a lot of readers and writers well.

People are free to self-publish if they want. But a lack of care and attention will bring self-publishing's reputation down even further.

Click to expand...

It may. Some will always generalize. It's worth the risk to me, and those who feel otherwise aren't being prevented from ignoring it entirely whether reading it or writing it.

Medievalist said:

Oh, I've read a number that are quite good--and spent around 300.00 to buy one in particular.

Most of those I've been really impressed by were from people who already had very impressive publishing credentials, and who used professionals to actually produce the book.

I think a niche book is a better starting point in terms of when/what to self-publish.

And I think most writers are better off concentrating on their writing than on book production.

But I've got about twenty self-publshed books in print form that are fabulous, and worth every cent I paid.

Click to expand...

You make some good points.

I'm actually heading over to the library to pick up a copy of a self-pubbed book, Spartacus, by Howard Fast. I think if you can't get published because you are locked up for contempt of Congress, then yes, self-publishing is perhaps a valid path forward. Backing from the Trotskyite International is optional.

I was surprised to discover that van Gulik's translation of The Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee was initially self-pubbed. So I guess if you have a translation of a rocking good story from a difficult-to-master language, yeah you are in that niche market.

But otherwise, I'm not so sure.

To be serious, I have done a certain amount of 'zining and APA-related writing, which is a form of self-publishing. Some very good, professional writers have come out of that scene. A lot of others have made their mark in fandom and with collectors. Like you say, folks will drop some pazoors on high-quality, niche market items. If you last long enough, you may even sell beat up old 'zines for good coin (I know guys who've done it). But it's a different thing from slapping your epic masterpiece on Amazon two hours after you typed "TEH END."

Massive props to all who have noted e-publishing is not the same as self-publishing.

Interesting. As always, people pick out key phrases without actually reading what someone wrote. I did not disparage the gatekeepers. I wasn't aware that it was derogatory so, if it has become so, my apologies. That was not my intent.

Yes, I've actually had access to his library. Some of the things he's pulled are by established publishing houses. Some are not. The key is that HE gets to choose. He, as a reader, has the fun of finding something to read that appeals to him.

I've read the sour grapes charge aimed at others on this board. Until you have access to these individuals personally and understand their reasons, their purposes for following a particular path, it's a little arrogant to throw that charge around.

Perhaps, I'm not fully understanding this argument from those who are so stringently opposed to the ebook innovation. I wasn't aware of a particular standard that must be upheld outside of the ability to communicate so that a reader will comprehend the intention of the writer. I'm aware of trends, of each publishing house wanting a genre or style. But a gold standard? Not so much. If there was such a thing, many of the best sellers and literary classics would fall short of it. In addition, we'd have no wondrous successes like J.K. Rowling or even Dickens or the Brontes back in the day when Thackery set the style.

Again, I don't uphold ebooks over the older path. There are some on these boards who immediately say that self-published eBook writers claim just that. Not all of us do so please, don't assume just because you see a key word or phrase. To repeat, my point is that each writer needs to understand all of the available paths and choose the one that best fits their requirements.

Not pounding on self-published ebook writers? Sorry, I've read a few posts on this thread and similar ones that come awfully close. As for the following statement with regard to encouraging it for less competition, it was an attempt at sarcasm. Trouble is, writing sarcasm is more difficult than speaking it. Written communication doesn't allow for vocal tone or facial expression.

callalily61 said:

I've quoted the parts below:

...

Especially the bolded line, which is bullshit. No one here is "pounding" anyone for choosing to self-publish.

Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I think this quote from scarletpeaches earlier in this thread sort of exemplifies where that sentiment comes from:

...not just a book that was wanked onto Amazon because the author decided the gatekeepers are bigmeaniedoodooheads.

Click to expand...

Self-publishers see a lot of that generalization. And too many take it too personally. It doesn't bother me (as someone who's self-published), but neither does the the sentence you've highlighted bother me (as someone who's trade published.)

The big meaniedoodooheads comment was a reference to the comment immediately above mine.

EngineerTiger said:

Not pounding on self-published ebook writers? Sorry, I've read a few posts on this thread and similar ones that come awfully close. As for the following statement with regard to encouraging it for less competition, it was an attempt at sarcasm. Trouble is, writing sarcasm is more difficult than speaking it. Written communication doesn't allow for vocal tone or facial expression.

Click to expand...

1. You have a problem with a post, use the Report Post button.

2. Writers who fail to convey emotional tenor via text should perhaps work harder on writing.

3. Given that better than half the mods, as well as the site owner, are self-pubbed in both print and digital formats, the complaints about AW being unfair, or "pounding" on self-pubbed writers are wearing a bit thin.

4. On a personal note, I am exceedingly tired of people whining about the big meanies, and "gatekeepers" [sic] at commercial publishers, while having absolutely no problem at all casting aspersions on the ethics, talents, intelligence and wit of those who have decided to opt for commercial publications, as well as those professionals who work in the publishing industry.

5. I have just spent much of the day hand-typesetting a book that will be self-published by a collection of writers. So don't go barking up the wrong tree in my case either. I think self-publishing is grand. I think epublishing is grand. I think commercial publishing in all sorts of formats is grand.

I'm just tired of idiocy, whining and entitlement.

I'm locking this thread.

You can appeal to Old Hack or to MacAllister if you think it should be unlocked. I'd suggest you think very carefully about your reasons.

J. Tanner said:

Self-publishers see a lot of that generalization.

Click to expand...

And they're going to see a lot more if this kind of statement continues to get made:

hughhowey said:

I'm concerned with what an individual does with their particular book. If that book is rubbish, where is it better off? If that book is dynamite, where is it better off? Its quality doesn't change with its location.

For really bad books, the answer seems obvious: self-publish. What good does sitting on the slush pile do? The same is probably true for mediocre books. That leaves stellar works, the kind that get the attention of agents and editors. Where are they better off?

Click to expand...

And what some of us are saying is ... what?

No, it doesn't 'hurt' anyone...except those that self publish. Why would anyone who wishes to honestly make self publishing work for them not even address this sort of attitude?

I know that here at AW, many members won't let that sort of thing go uncommented on when talking about trade publishing and in sending out queries and submitting the best possible book they can.

It shines a very poor light on self-publishing as a whole when that sort of attitude is embraced instead of challenged. Readers are not stupid. They may not say anything in the reviews but they do with their dollars. They do to each other. And the reputation of self-publishing continues to take a nose-dive.