If big 4 (6?) are so scared of Amazon why don't they ...

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Barty

... just get together and build their own e book store. Partner with an OEM to produce their own reader, create their own DRM (or not). Sure it'll be a huge investment but they can start small and slowly ramp up. Lay the ground work for the future. Stop being hostage to Amazon.

If people can't get their latest Stephen king from Amazon and have to download it from big4books.com that's what they'll do.

Really? Perhaps because if they did that and dared to sell cheaper directly to the customer than via the "useless middleman" Amazon, then Amazon's sugardaddy in the Department of Justice would scream "illegal cartel" again?
Again, if the publishers are so irrelevant, why doesn't Amazon simply do woithout their offerings?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Again, if the publishers are so irrelevant, why doesn't Amazon simply do woithout their offerings?

I haven't seen anybody say they are irrelevant to Amazon.
The BPHs still generate about a third of their book revenue. Collectively. Individually, only the randy penguin can hurt Amazon enough to be noticed if they pulled their titles when their contract expires. Besides, every little bit helps the bottom line...

What the BPHs are is increasingly less valuable to authors (even the gold-plated gang) and open minded readers. And for most authors, they are less valuable than what they charge for their services. Some are willing to put up with this declining value but every day more and more authors are learning to vote their pocketbook.

You are, however, correct that if all the BPHs pull their titles from Amazon simultaneously they will end up back in court real fast. But it won't be because of the DOJ; it would be because four of the five would be breaking an existing contract.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Strawman alert, strawman alert!

Don't you think it is getting a little bit ridiculous claiming strawmans anywhere? Maybe you should make a nice banner for it, it would certainly be worth the labor, as it would surly see enough use.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The "pile of thousands of unedited books" mantra is a classic strawman. It's only relevant to readers who are are in the habit of buying unknown books/authors to read at random (utterly spin-the-wheel random). What percentage does that represent? Most readers usually have a pretty good idea they're going to like a book before they buy it. Not because of how it was published, but because a) they already know/like the author; or b) people have been talking about the book. The huge pile of dreck—that no one ever has to wade into if they don't want to—just isn't all that relevant.

The fact of the matter is: if you choose books to buy blindly, you're running the risk of wasting your money on a book that—regardless of how well it's edited—you may not like. That's true whether you buy tradpub or indie. And I for one, don't really consider spending my money on a beautifully edited book I didn't like, a win.

I'm thinking you don't understand what a strawman argument is - From Wiki
"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
...
"

If you don't think that Amazon has a huge pile of drek in their ebook then try looking at the SF&F last 30 days by publication date - 5,575 books, including such classics as "Five Man Midget Death Squad" and "Have You Seen My Cat?". I recognized 3 authors in the first 100 books, then gave up.

I guess you have never heard of the concept of browsing for books to read.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Don't you think it is getting a little bit ridiculous claiming strawmans anywhere? Maybe you should make a nice banner for it, it would certainly be worth the labor, as it would surly see enough use.

Maybe people should stop using strawman arguments.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The "pile of thousands of unedited books" mantra is a classic strawman.

Yup. It's the good old volcano of crap mantra.

It is a handy-handy smokescreen to bring up whenever the traditionalists want to sneer at people who don't share their "lofty" standards. Whether it be indie titles, specific genres, or even a publisher that doesn't adhere to their "standards" (cough*Baen*cough) the first resort is to brand all their stuff crap.

It is easier than trying to deal with the fact that readers actually know what they like and they are the ones who have the final say.

[shalym]

Every time people start talking about "strawman" arguments, all I can think of is my favorite strawman quote of all time:

Shari

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you don't think that Amazon has a huge pile of drek in their ebook then try looking at the SF&F last 30 days by publication date - 5,575 books, including such classics as "Five Man Midget Death Squad" and "Have You Seen My Cat?". I recognized 3 authors in the first 100 books, then gave up.

I guess you have never heard of the concept of browsing for books to read.

Are you really not aware what you are doing? This was NOT what was said. The argument was, that this "pile of drek" is not relevant and not that different to the "pile of tradpubed books". Nobody said, it does not exist...
And "the concept of browsing for books to read" is not a good concept to find books. It only is, if you browse specific and pre-selected books, not just some random list.

[induna]

There has been a lot more dreck than quality for as long as I've been reading -- over 50 years. Heck, many (most) of the "Best Sellers" have always been pretty awful. The major publishers have never been primarily, or even tertiarily, bastions of culture. They have never hesitated to pander for dollars. Ever.

It's true that now, with Indie publishing, there may be more dreck that is completely unedited, but, then again, more and more books coming from the BPHs appear to have little or no proof-reading, let alone editing, as well.

The digital age has irrevocably democratized the written work, for good and ill. We are now manifestly our own gatekeepers of quality, but we always were anyhow. What we now have to deal with is educating people to be critical readers, and thinkers, who can choose wisely for themselves.

Attempting to stem the free-flow of information in the 21st century is pointless, and just plain silly. The words will out, no matter what.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

What the BPHs are is increasingly less valuable to authors (even the gold-plated gang) and open minded readers.

Don't know about all this strawman business, but this quoted comment is a bit insulting to readers. Just because I still prefer to read books that are published by publishers, doesn't mean I am not open minded. Not sure what that is even suppose to mean. Open minded about what, not knowing if an author bothered to get an editor? Not knowing if after I get to 20 % of the read it all falls apart, you know, only editing the sample part?
Not knowing if the author didn't even know the genre they were writing in so they stick it in the best selling one (romance) even if its not?

Those have been my experiences overall. Do I read self published books? Yes I do. If they have been vetted by readers I know and trust. Are there some great self published books? Sure, but overall there is also a lot more crap.

So yes, I value publishers. And I read only ebooks by the way so all this talk about publishers only dealing with paper products doesn't apply to me. I have been reading ebooks since 2008 and the majority were with publishers. There really weren't that many SP books around in the beginning.

And bringing up Snookie every time this SP versus evil publisher stuff is brought up is really getting tiring. For every one Snookie book published by publishers, there are 1000's and 1000's "Snookie" books self published.

I don't get that need to constantly try to paint publishers as this evil thing while artificially lifting up self publishers. There is a place for everyone. I just want to read good books and making judgments on readers about how supposedly they are only open minded if they read only magical SP books is really silly.
Its often the thing that makes SP's look more and more silly to me when they are so busy bashing on the publishers, instead of just being happy doing what they want to do. One one hand they don't want nothing to do with them, on the other its often all they talk about.

Me, I am just a reader and I want to have the best chance to have good to great reads every time I sit down with my kindle. And my vetting system so far has not let me down.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm thinking you don't understand what a strawman argument is -

Actually I do, I just wanted to point out how silly it is to say it all the time (even when it's being "correctly" used). But you're right, I used it incorrectly.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you don't think that Amazon has a huge pile of drek in their ebook then try looking at the SF&F last 30 days by publication date - 5,575 books, including such classics as "Five Man Midget Death Squad" and "Have You Seen My Cat?". I recognized 3 authors in the first 100 books, then gave up.

**And then he delivers one up on a silver platter**
Strawman! Strawman! I never claimed Amazon didn't have a "huge pile of drek [sic] in their ebook. [sic]" That was not my argument at all. My argument was that no one need enter the "volcano of crap" if they don't want to. See how fun and helpful that is?

I guess you have never heard of the concept of browsing for books to read.

Oh I've heard of it. I just don't know all that many people who actually do it all that often (except when they're bored with their usual fare and are looking to take a risk on something unknown). And of those who do ... most have developed rudimentary filtering skills/techniques that help them quickly and easily dismiss the pretenders. Myself... I'm too busy reading books I already have a pretty good idea I'm going to like (and the recommendations of people I trust) to waste my time browsing around blindly.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Barty

... just get together and build their own e book store. Partner with an OEM to produce their own reader, create their own DRM (or not). Sure it'll be a huge investment but they can start small and slowly ramp up. Lay the ground work for the future. Stop being hostage to Amazon.

If people can't get their latest Stephen king from Amazon and have to download it from big4books.com that's what they'll do.

Because they aren't scared of Amazon they're scared of the digital disruption to the industry. If they sell direct they would be vilified by the legacy retail chain just like Amazon. They like Amazon but they want to geld them.

Amazon is a great distraction for them.

"You cut our advances!" ... 'We had to 'cause Amazon'

"You're giving us less royalties!" ... 'We had to 'cause Amazon'

"You're not promoting my book!" ... 'I'd like to but Amazon'

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually I do, I just wanted to point out how silly it is to say it all the time (even when it's being "correctly" used). But you're right, I used it incorrectly.


**And then he delivers one up on a silver platter**
Strawman! Strawman! I never claimed Amazon didn't have a "huge pile of drek [sic] in their ebook. [sic]" That was not my argument at all. My argument was that no one need enter the "volcano of crap" if they don't want to. See how fun and helpful that is?


Oh I've heard of it. I just don't know all that many people who actually do it all that often (except when they're bored with their usual fare and are looking to take a risk on something unknown). And of those who do ... most have developed rudimentary filtering skills/techniques that help them quickly and easily dismiss the pretenders. Myself... I'm too busy reading books I already have a pretty good idea I'm going to like (and the recommendations of people I trust) to waste my time browsing around blindly.

You said, "The "pile of thousands of unedited books" mantra is a classic strawman". I would consider that a pile of drek, but your mileage might vary.

I imagine that a lot more people browse than you think. Otherwise, why did so many traditional books stores have a just published section? Pretty much every bookstore that didn't sell used books that I've been in had a just published section.

Amazon's search engine works ok if you have a specific book or author you are looking for (though, IMPO, the author search needs some work. When I search for Roger Zelazny as the author, I want books by Roger Zelazny, not books by Andre Norton, Phillip Dick, David Eddings, Alfred Bester and the list goes on. Seriously.) Just looking to see what books are new since the last time I visited (the method that I've used to look for new books to read in traditional bookstores since the late 1970's), is quite a chore.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Atunah

Not sure what that is even suppose to mean.

It means literally what I said: publishers are less valuable to people who are open to reading any book that catches their eye, regardless of its source.

It is understood that some people, for reasons valid to them, refuse to consider indie titles at all. Obviously, the BPHs will be more valuable to them.

Do remember my baseline position that readers should be free to read whatever they choose. I certainly don't care what others read or think.
I do care when anything not blessed by a traditional contract is dismissed as inferior crap, sight unseen.

It is very different to say "All the selfpubbed titles I sampled were unedited crap" as opposed to "all self-pubbed titles are unedited crap".

The former reflects one person's reported experience and is at least theoretically possible. The latter is something no living person can possibly attest to: there are over a million selfpubbed titles out there and a large portion of them come from previously tradpubbed authors (some of which still are tradpubbed) and a good portion of their titles are rights-reverted tradpub titles.

"All indie titles are unedited crap" is thus a documented falsehood.
"A lot of indie titles are unedited crap" is literally true but then so is "A lot of tradpub titles are unedited crap". Both are documented. Bringing up the former without the latter is at best disingenuous. (Note that I avoid the s-word. )

It is important to drive home that indie publishing is not a different and inherently inferior writing process but rather an alternate *distribution* channel. No more, no less.
That is the whole point of the smiley curve articles linked above.

Traditional publishing is no longer the only game in town. (just ask J.K. Rowling of Pottermore fame.) And because there are alternatives, the value of their services is lower. It is no different than a one restaurant town getting a second restaurant; the value of the first declines to anybody willing to eat at the second. Of course, to those unwilling to sample the cooking at the new place, nothing has changed.

Readers can and should read whatever appeals to them and authors can and should bring their books to market however they choose to. However, zombie memes need to be buried so we can move on to the future.

[dickloraine]

Yes, but that section is edited. You don't just browse all new books, but that which the store had ordered.