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

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's just weird that poetry would be described as a subset of fiction. . . .

Agreed; however, I take issue with one implication which people might infer from this:

But:

"Listen my children and you will hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere...." or

"'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
  Rode the six hundred."

are not examples of "fiction".

No, those poems are not fiction insofar as they refer to factual events. However, they are certainly narrative poems which offer (in stylized form) much of the same information as a prose account. Modern expectations would dictate that that those same events now be rendered in prose (unless the account were parodic; for example, a report on a scandal-plagued politician's loss written in the form of "Casey at the Bat"), like the manuals and Bible translations that I've mentioned.

If a poem can use narrative, then it can be a work of fiction, just as it can be an account of an historical event.

People who say that poems must be cries from the gut or "about love" are also mistaking content for form. How exactly are Pound's Pisan Cantos or collections like Bob Perelman's Primer "about love"?

Additionally, many would draw a distinction between poetry (which is thought to have a certain depth of meaning and/or feeling) and verse (cf. any vintage Gradus ad Parnassum which uses rhyme and meter to help the student memorize content). I tend not to make that distinction because the answer -- that poetry is the higher form -- is so common as to be cliche, and because the inevitable discussion that follows -- what is and isn't poetry -- nearly always hinges on the preconceptions of the participants.

At this point, manuals in verse are so uncommon that I think it might be fun to write one -- especially a manual for mortuary cosmeticians.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

At this point, manuals in verse are so uncommon that I think it might be fun to write one

Writing "serious" books (philosophy, books about farming, tracts on religion, etc) in verse was common in the ancient world. Lots of example in both Latin and Greek. I agree that it's a shame it's no longer done - it's so much "classier" to write a farming manual in dactylic hexameter verse .

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree that it's a shame it's no longer done - it's so much "classier" to write a farming manual in dactylic hexameter verse .

I love elaborate writing from the days of the pre-prosaic, which is why I once recast Victorian instructions on the crafting of doll clothes as a set of quintrains at the beginning of an early novel.

You have to use lots of hudibrastic rhymes and a singsong meter if you want it to sound like demoralized Robert Browning!

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I have found more I really to read since getting an ereader. My want to read list is frightening in length. A very good thing overall but can be stressful as there is no way I can finish it and I add more every week

This is my lament as well. I add to my TBR pile daily, and I can truly put the blame on my ereaders. Before I bought my first ereader, I think the largest my TBR pile had ever been was about 50 hardcover books. I'd see a book I wanted to read, look at my TBR piles, and say "No more buying -- yet!" I would then just add the book to a written list of future purchases. My TBR was physically intimidating.

The came my first ereader. Alas, there was no visible, physical pile of ebooks to be read. After all, what are a few bits and bytes when storage media is so cheap for so much? Today, my ebook TBR is more than 3,000 ebooks and growing daily. I'll not live long enough to read every book in my TBR pile even if I stop adding to it.

For me, books are an addiction. I can neither stop buying nor reading. The ereader has also been deadly for my hardcover TBR piles. Whereas before I had maybe a maximum of 50 pbooks waiting to be read, my current hardcover TBR has more than 125 hardcovers waiting and I just ordered several more.

Oh, well -- if I have to sink under something, I'm just as happy that it is under the weight of too much to read.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by rhadin

For me, books are an addiction. I can neither stop buying nor reading.

For years, my best friend and I sometimes stopped at bookstores en route to coffee shops and bars. I thought he liked to do that because he was a prolific writer and the places where we stopped often sold books by him.

One day, I was about to walk into St Mark's Books when he stopped me.

"Let's not go in here just yet," he said. "In fact, let's not go in here period. I hate going to bookstores with you -- it's like an alcoholic making the rounds!"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Agreed; however, I take issue with one implication which people might infer from this:



No, those poems are not fiction insofar as they refer to factual events. However, they are certainly narrative poems which offer (in stylized form) much of the same information as a prose account. Modern expectations would dictate that that those same events now be rendered in prose (unless the account were parodic; for example, a report on a scandal-plagued politician's loss written in the form of "Casey at the Bat"), like the manuals and Bible translations that I've mentioned.

If a poem can use narrative, then it can be a work of fiction, just as it can be an account of an historical event.

People who say that poems must be cries from the gut or "about love" are also mistaking content for form. How exactly are Pound's Pisan Cantos or collections like Bob Perelman's Primer "about love"?

Additionally, many would draw a distinction between poetry (which is thought to have a certain depth of meaning and/or feeling) and verse (cf. any vintage Gradus ad Parnassum which uses rhyme and meter to help the student memorize content). I tend not to make that distinction because the answer -- that poetry is the higher form -- is so common as to be cliche, and because the inevitable discussion that follows -- what is and isn't poetry -- nearly always hinges on the preconceptions of the participants.

At this point, manuals in verse are so uncommon that I think it might be fun to write one -- especially a manual for mortuary cosmeticians.

True. There is the Fairie Queene by Spencer which is poetry in a narrative but most poetry isn't fiction as such was my main point. It's more the exception (at least now days) than the rule. Which is why I said that poetry is more about abstract ideas and fiction more about what happens to individual characters.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rhadin

For me, books are an addiction. I can neither stop buying nor reading. The ereader has also been deadly for my hardcover TBR piles. Whereas before I had maybe a maximum of 50 pbooks waiting to be read, my current hardcover TBR has more than 125 hardcovers waiting and I just ordered several more.

As long as you're reading at least *some* you should be safe.
But if you're just accumulating them you might be an incipient horder on the way to the family having to mount an intervention.

[fjtorres]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the evidence mounts *against* the self-pub books are amateur rubbish meme:

http://lauraresnickauthor.wordpress....ished-writers/

Here’s a typical example of why self-publishing is such a great development for the traditionally published author:

• In 2010, the earning life and market potential of all my backlist books was completely over. Nothing of mine released prior to 2009 was in print, none of it was earning a penny anywhere, and none of it was realistically viable for re-sale to publishers. And in traditional publishing, this was a typical position for a writer. Few people besides bestsellers had a backlist that stayed in print and earning for more than a few years.
• In 2011, I started self-publishing those backlist novels as ebooks—and promptly started earning income from them again, as well as hearing from new readers who’d never found my work before.
• In 2012, these same books, which had been dormant for years, accounted for one-third of my annual income as a full-time self-supporting writer, and they were a crucial factor in my being able to buy a house last year.

This is a typical example of why every traditionally published author with the sense that the gods gave to overcooked broccoli (and that’s most of us) is thrilled to death with self-publishing and elbow-deep in our own self-publishing programs.

Presumably she means the nay-sayers *fail* to meet the "cooked brocolli" basic intelligence test.

So whenever some poorly-informed writer with a big media megaphone claims that self-publishing is destroying literature, I ask you to keep in mind that such statements are no more representative of traditionally published writers than is a statement by some politician claiming that women don’t actually want equal rights and equal pay.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the evidence mounts *against* the self-pub books are amateur rubbish meme:

http://lauraresnickauthor.wordpress....ished-writers/

Presumably she means the nay-sayers *fail* to meet the "cooked brocolli" basic intelligence test.

What are you proving? That an established author's traditionally published backlist books do not magically turn into "amateur rubbish" when later self-published? Fine, I concede the point--obviously, since this material was already edited and polished by publishing professionals.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Fine, I concede the point--obviously, since this material was already edited and polished by publishing professionals.

I'd agree that it was problably polished by publishing professionals. But a few authors are so good at making their own revisions that a strong-minded editor isn't really needed. Here's a quote from a prominent editor, about an important author, that I noticed:

The truth is, Bob doesn’t really need me, but he thinks he does.

Undoubtedly there are other authors who think they just need proofreading but really need a major rewrite.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the evidence mounts *against* the self-pub books are amateur rubbish meme:

It does nothing of the sort. The article you reference is talking about professionally-published authors re-releasing their own work via self-publication.

The issue is the flood of crap from those who are not good enough to get published.

[Ansileran]

In terms of quality, I compare self-published e-books to fanfiction.

There are fanfictions out there that are extremely well written, not a single spelling mistake, great plot... Those have usually been "beta-ed". Sadly, those are few in number...

The bulk of fanfiction writing would need a good storyline editing and most would need some proof reading. "Wrong" (not poor but plainly inexistant) grammar and poor spelling detract from reading. I drop most of those after a couple pages.

Difference with self-published e-books? They are free and I can take my own sample. I usually don't trust offered samples because I don't know if it's truly a random sample or if it's just the best excerpt of the book (it's valid for publisher books also). So far, I only buy e-books that have been recommended to me by trusted sources, whose author I know or that I have perused in paper form...

I know I miss a lot but as long as I have books to read that keep me happy, it's not going to change ^^

[Ansileran]

Of course, there are some books that no publisher wants because they are considered unmarketable but which are still very good... My favorite serie has been out of print for years (last tome didn't make it to the public) because it is (the author told me):
- too short for adult (novel) fiction
- too long to be considered short-stories
- main character is adult (so not YA fiction)
- too dark to be children / teen fiction

Those are actual answers from publishers... I wouldn't hesitate for one minute to buy it if it were self-published.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As long as you're reading at least *some* you should be safe.
But if you're just accumulating them you might be an incipient horder on the way to the family having to mount an intervention.

Definitely not a hoarder. I read, on average, 2-3 books a week and always have at least 3 books going at the same time. It is just that there are so many books I want to try in my search for the books truly worth (to me) reading.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'd agree that it was problably polished by publishing professionals. But a few authors are so good at making their own revisions that a strong-minded editor isn't really needed. Here's a quote from a prominent editor, about an important author, that I noticed:

Undoubtedly there are other authors who think they just need proofreading but really need a major rewrite.

In my 30 years as a professional editor, I have edited many hundreds of books and many thousands of authors. If I were to line up 1,000 of the authors to select those who were not in need of the services of a professional editor, I might find 1 --- the remaining 999 all would benefit from a professional editor's services.

It is true that a very few authors can do it all themselves -- write, edit, design, even tell a good story -- but the reality is that it is a small group of authors who are capable of self-editing; most authors need the help that a professional editor can provide.

I think it is wrong for those few authors who can self-edit to keep telling all authors they can do it themselves when they can't -- unless, of course, it is a nefarious plot by those who can to make those who can't don't ever get any better .