[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I can learn quite a lot about a book in advance. I can look at the cover. If the cover is poor, I pass. I can looks the blurb. If the blurb is filled with typos, or if it doesn't look interesting, I pass. If I'm still interested, I can download the sample. If I lose interest, I stop reading. If I'm still interested by the end of the sample, I buy.

And then there's reviews and recomendations that help me decide if I want to buy the book. I don't have to be the first guinea pig to try the book. I do the same things with traditionally published books. I've never picked up a book from the shelf and said "It's traditionally published, so it has to be good!" There's really no fundamental difference between indie books and any other artistic endeavor. But if you only want to read traditionally published books, don't let me stop you.

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I depend a lot on reviews, but mostly on review blogs, ones that I have learned I can trust. I may not always agree with their grades, but from their summary of the good points and bad points, I can always tell whether I'll like a book or not - and that, to me, makes a good review.

So it's fine and dandy to weed out books by their covers and by reviews, but it's somehow narrow-minded and petty (paraphrasing someone's earlier comment) to weed out books by whether they are traditionally or self-published?

An author doesn't have the money to hire an artist or is a washout when it comes to graphic design, and therefore his work doesn't deserve to be read? Why is that a legitimate criterion, but an insistence on traditional publication is not? Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?