Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
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?
|
It's fine to weed out self-published. The topic was centered around whether a writer should self-publish--so I think the difference is whether someone is saying, "all self-published books are that way because they aren't good enough" versus "I choose not to buy self-published."