12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[Josieb1]

I am also not of the opinion I could ever, under any circumstances, be an editor, the word actually makes me shudder.

[TallMomof2]

I've had very mixed results from self-published books. Many need a really good editor not just the mechanics but real feedback on characterization and world building. Also feedback on simple aspects such as plot. For now I'm avoiding self-published books and sticking with publishing houses that use good editors.

[Catlady]

Grammar isn't a little nicety that isn't really necessary--it's not just a bit of extra gloss. It's the structural underpinning that facilitates communication. You need the structure if you want other people to be able to understand the story you're trying to tell. And if you don't care about communicating with others, why bother writing at all?

[speakingtohe]

One thing publishers provide IMO is a settling period. If an aspiring author gets rejected, they may look at their work and revise/improve it before submitting it elsewhere. This can, one hears, happen many times

If you submit a book to a publisher, the first person who sees it has to like it to some extent or it goes no farther.

I am sure many books have been improved in this way. Of course if the author writes a great romance that is first read by a romance hater, then they also may be discouraged completely.

While I don't see publishers as gatekeepers, saving us from the worlds mindless trash, I think that they have to have a fairly good understanding of what makes a book that will be enjoyed by many people or they would be out of business.
When I was very young I read anything as there were not a lot of books available, and I can only remember reading one book I found disgusting and unbearable. I would even read my math and science textbooks.

Now my tastes have sunken, and I read for entertainment mostly.

I generally read traditionally published works for two reasons,

1. I love a lot of authors whose books are traditionally published, because they were written long before we had ebooks
2. I look on the publishing industry as people who can be trusted to indicate to me in a way I am accustomed to books I am likely to enjoy.

I haven't always enjoyed the books I have bought or borrowed or found abandoned on a park bench, but much more often than not I have, I can tell before buying or borrowing a book if I am likely to enjoy it. How or why I am not sure of, but I think that the publishing industry has been good to me in this regard.

I've never been aware of publishers as individual entities until very recently. I never looked at a book and said ahh published by Baen, gotta be good or at least okay. But how can I fail to hold an industry in hiof which gh regard that has provided me with 3-8 books a week for more than 50 years, at least 90% I found enjoyable on some level, and over 50% I really liked.

Helen

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Grammar isn't a little nicety that isn't really necessary--it's not just a bit of extra gloss. It's the structural underpinning that facilitates communication. You need the structure if you want other people to be able to understand the story you're trying to tell. And if you don't care about communicating with others, why bother writing at all?

So why are the underpinnings burdened with excess "stuff" that doesn't really help with understanding?

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by teh603

So why are the underpinnings burdened with excess "stuff" that doesn't really help with understanding?

What does this even mean? The post was about the importance of grammar.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by teh603

Grammar went out with Said Books (since repetition and most other poetic devices are BAD and should never be used in prose). People write for effect now, not perfect grammar.

Leaving aside your comment that grammar has become passé, I find it odd that you feel poetic devices are actually "BAD." By extension, you're implying that various writers who are highly regarded for their poetic prose are also "BAD": James Joyce, William Styron, William Butler Yeats, Cormac McCarthy, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Beckett, Jamaica Kincaid, Robert Coover and John Hawkes, to name but nine out of at least two thousand.

Please keep in mind that prose is not always written for the same purpose or reader. Innumerable personalities, aims and aesthetic sensibilities result in countless stylistic variations. If you personally -- or even they impersonally (a general demographic that includes you) -- happen to dislike careful prose, then that's a real consideration for the writer who wants to reach you. Otherwise, why should it matter to anyone else?

The prose writer who chooses to be poetic might do so for good reasons, including the possession of a lyric gift which helps to shape their voice. You might not like what they write, and that might be due to a realistic assessment of your allotted time and patience, but I think it's a mistake to presume that one's own impatience with certain styles serves as the merit detector for the world.

Personally, I like to see repetition used judiciously -- not only within a paragraph, but as a way of giving the reader of a short story or novel a sense of recognition. Recurring ideas, themes and phrases are often the rhymes of plotting.

I'm also a fan of the conscious use of rhythm, poetic scansion and the avoidance of sibilance to make lines and narratives flow. When used effectively, rhythm can create a feeling of momentum even when the action is static (as Beckett knew all too well).

No reason to restrict a century's palette based on a decade's fashion.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's my problem, you see; for me poor grammar and spelling distracts so much from the story that I can't concentrate on it. I take the view that those things are a writer's toolkit, and a writer who doesn't know how to use their tools correctly really isn't worth reading. I actually see it as insulting to the reader for the author not to take the trouble to get them right.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Grammar isn't a little nicety that isn't really necessary--it's not just a bit of extra gloss. It's the structural underpinning that facilitates communication. You need the structure if you want other people to be able to understand the story you're trying to tell. And if you don't care about communicating with others, why bother writing at all?

I couldn't possibly agree more, with both of you. Nothing kills my interest in and enjoyment of a book as quickly as consistently bad grammar and spelling. The odd mistake is fine, but there's simply nothing as off-putting as basic mistakes made over and over. To me, anyway.

Originally Posted by teh603

Grammar went out with Said Books (since repetition and most other poetic devices are BAD and should never be used in prose). People write for effect now, not perfect grammar.

No-one's asking for perfect anything, but if their grammar and spelling isn't at least very decent, then they'll end up having exactly no effect on me.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

12% seems a bit low of an estimate when I do searches for books. At least on the rubbish part.

It's actually referring to sales -- which I think is more plausible. Many of the self-published books are probably only sold in small quantities.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by teh603

Grammar went out with Said Books (since repetition and most other poetic devices are BAD and should never be used in prose). People write for effect now, not perfect grammar.

As a woman who run away for books written/translated in her own language because of bad syntax/grammar, I can't disagree more with you.

[Josieb1]

I'll just carry on enjoying and reviewing the books I love and leave the discussion of what makes a good book (obviously not self published of course) to the rest of you.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

I'll just carry on enjoying and reviewing the books I love and leave the discussion of what makes a good book (obviously not self published of course) to the rest of you.

The problem is, Josie, that we all have different definitions. At the start of this thread you categorically stated that the books that you reviewed were not rubbish, but then it turned out that you don't actually care about spelling or grammar - things which matter a great deal to other people. So it's certainly possibly that many of the books which you say aren't rubbish would be so to other people.

[Billi]

Could or would you enjoy these books that create the greatest criticism here - bad spelling, grammar... - when you would listen to them as audio books?

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Whereas each and every traditionally published book does. Someone has a high opinion of his own tastes.

The whole problem with this trad versus indie publishing "war" is that traditional publishers always want to paint themselves as the gatekeepers of quality--of art. When nothing could be further from the truth. They have zero concern with what might "enhance the world." Their gatekeeping role is predicated around what they think they can sell. There's nothing wrong with that -- as long as you don't pretend it's about anything else.

I'm not so sure about that.
I have a much better feeling re. quality, if there has been a lectorate, an editor and the likes.
I try to avoid self-publishing one-man-shows. Lack of any "4 eyes principle" in a few cases really led to frightening results. I've started some novels, which I had to end after a few pages. I thought to myself, those books never would have found a publisher and never would have been published without serious re-writing and editing.
There certainly are some pearls out there. But how to find the 5% pearls and separate them from the rest?
I don't want to download samples. I want to read the description and rely on some kind of quality control.

You're obviously right:
It's not about art.
It's not about "changing the world".
But I simply hope, that in the interest of profits, professional corporates track the quality of their products.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

Could or would you enjoy these books that create the greatest criticism here - bad spelling, grammar... - when you would listen to them as audio books?

Obviously spelling wouldn't be an issue in an audiobook . I don't know about grammar - I'm not sure how much I'd notice it. It's not an experiment that I'm especially keen to carry out, to be honest .