Your Zen Question for Today

At this time I would still be much more inclined to purchase an actual published book, for many of the same reasons I would be more inclined to purchase a book published by a traditional publisher than one self-published (which is actually self-printing) or POD.

validation would lead me to believe that Mr. Doe has the superior book. I like that traditionally published books come pre-validated. I don't like taking risks and I would believe the reviews on the self-published book to be written by friends...whether or not they were. I wouldn't buy the self-published book.

jst5150 said:

Without having read either book, which is the better book? Why? And which one would you be more inclined to buy and why?

And ... go.

Click to expand...

I would buy the big publishing house book because it was professionally marketed and caught my eye. Chances are, I'd have never heard of the self-published book unless someone recommended it.

BTW, you should do a daily "Zen/Tao Question of the Day" -- a general question related to some area of writing. Whoever gives the most well thought out reply can be "Grasshopper for the Day". However, please don't do a "Prologue or no prologue?" or "Outline or no outline" or "One space or two after a period?" question.

Oh, and thanks for getting rid of all that spam last night.

jst5150 said:

Without having read either book, which is the better book? Why? And which one would you be more inclined to buy and why?

Click to expand...

Likely to be the better book is the operative phrase.

Statistically speaking, there's a much high chance that a traditionally-published book will higher quality than a self-published one, and that's one important factor I take that into consideration when making a purchase. It's a strategy for narrowing down options, but it's not perfect. The self-published one could be better.

The only way to know which is the better book is by reading both books. There's no other way.

The difference between the two books is that John Doe's is likely to be at least okay and Jack Smith's could be great or awful.

Anyone can self-publish a book. - I've actually had one in my hands, a friend of a friend's, she couldn't spell and didn't know the difference between they're, there, and their, so I put it down after two pages. So I know which book I wouldn't be buying.

Then I'd be going for the one with the best storyline.

jst5150 said:

Samantha, both books are on an even playing field in that respect. The method of distribution would be the only difference.

Click to expand...

I'm with KTC on this one -- the BigPub book comes pre-vetted at a multitude of levels, and is therefore much more likely to be of higher quality than the SelfPub book.

And also because of my experience -- one of my jobs is vetting self-pubbed titles for the bookstore at which I work. This experience has led me to believe that there's maybe a one in a million chance of my EVER buying a self-pubbed book. Maybe if it was by a friend. Maybe.

I'd still have to read John Doe's book, in that regard. I don't like Stephen King's writing but that doesn't mean Doe's book is automatically "better" or "superior" in any way. I won't declare a book "better" by merit of how it was published alone; I need to read it to make that judgement.

But if I didn't know it was Stephen King and the story didn't seem all that good, then I wouldn't know and different and still wouldn't buy it. I actually stopped buying Stephen King in the early 1990's anyway, he was seeming to lose his touch for me.

jst5150 said:

Then allow me to change the question up a bit.

Let's say 'Jack Smith' is Stephen King.

Now what are your answers?

Click to expand...

jst5150 said:

Samantha, both books are on an even playing field in that respect. The method of distribution would be the only difference.

Click to expand...

I admit to being prejudiced. My personal expectations would be that the self-published book has not been professionally edited. How would I know otherwise? Even if its storyline sounds better, I would go with the other one for fear of awkward phrasing/typoes [sic!] alone.

Without having read either book, which is the better book?

Click to expand...

John Doe's.

The question is a bit of a truism. A good book is a book that a lot of people read and love. Yes, this implies that Dan Brown and Bernard Werber have written a lot of good books. Yes, this bothers me too.

Why?

Click to expand...

It has much better sales. If a book is good, it will sell. Forced sales and other scams excluded, the reverse is true: if a book sold well, it is good.

And which one would you be more inclined to buy and why?

Click to expand...

This is a tough one. I don't have enough information as of yet to make a decision between the two books. I'd need the genre, at least. I won't read a book based on its sales or publishing house only.

All things being equal, I'd buy the book I could pluck off the shelf at B&N. I still do most of my book buying in brick and mortar stores, so if the self-pubbed book wasn't there, I'd most likely never know it existed.

I'd probably buy both, provided I could read an excerpt of each before purchasing. I tend to buy online anymore, so whether or not it's in a store makes very little difference to me. I tend to look at self-pubbed books just like I'd look at any craft or folk-art at a street fair - if it looks well-made, I'll buy it. If not, I'll pass. I like to support independent artists, and self-pubbed writers fit that mold in my mind. I also like to support good artists who sell their work commercially, and trad. published writers fit *that* mold for me.

My point being, as long as I can read an excerpt first to check out the writing style & genre, I don't care where it comes from. As a reader, I just want good stories, and to support good talent.

Meh, publication and marketing hoopla don't guarantee a book will please me. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I must admit that after a number of bad experiences with much-hyped novels, I've come to view the megabook with a jaundiced eye. Not that I won't give it a look, but I won't come to it with expectations any more raised than I'd bring to any other book. Including the self-published. There may be many more needles in the commercially published haystack than in the self-published haystack, but given all the hay, it can be a chore to extract pointy-silvery objects from either pile.

It takes me about fifteen minutes of reading the cover copy, reading the first few pages, skimming through the rest, to decide whether I'm likely to enjoy a book. Now, if I spot glaring errors right off, that's it. But I've spoted those in both megabooks and microbooks.

The only real difference between Doe and Smith, for me, would be:

I'm much much more likely to know about Doe's book. I probably won't know about Smith's unless he's a friend or I stumble across his story in a forum or blog somewhere.

Oh, another difference:

I'd be much more thrilled to discover that Smith's book was really good. Then I could get the delicious sense of having discovered greatness for myself. My word-of-mouth praise could have an appreciable effect on the book's success. And I could write to Smith about my delight and hope it would really mean something to him, instead of earning the shrugged "Of course" of Doe.

Though, who knows. Doe might be hungry for sincere reader praise, too, after all the glitz.

ChaosTitan said:

All things being equal, I'd buy the book I could pluck off the shelf at B&N. I still do most of my book buying in brick and mortar stores, so if the self-pubbed book wasn't there, I'd most likely never know it existed.

Click to expand...

This. I buy almost everything in brick and mortar stores. If it's not on the shelf, I can't/won't buy it.

It would depend entirely on the back cover copy.

If the concept interests me, I'll give it a try. I don't care who published it. Plenty of "real books" have boring concepts. About as many as there are horribly written self-published books. So it just doesn't matter.

jst5150 said:

Without having read either book, which is the better book? Why?

Click to expand...

Can't say because I haven't read either book.

I love some very unknown books and loathe some popular ones. I also love some popular books and loathe some very unknown ones. So, this question doesn't really work.

I'm not being an ass, I'm just being honest. And if you thrust both under my nose and said pick one to read, I'd take them both, flip them over, and go from there.

jst5150 said:

And which one would you be more inclined to buy and why?

Click to expand...

The one I can find in a bookstore. Barring that, the one recommended highly to me by someone whose tastes I tend to agree with.

Counter-question: There are two women in a dark room. Which one is more beautiful, and which one would you rather have sex with?

Only a mosquito knows the sound of one hand clapping, and the dead tell no tales.

i'll be completely honest, i'd go for john doe's book, even if they were on the same level, because a] i will have actually heard of the first book and seen it in my local bookshop/know people who have read it b] it has gone through all the vetting of the traditional publisher - which means theres a guarantee that editing etc will be decent.
You don't get that guarantee with Self-published books generally, which often does taint the good self-published books.