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?
|
Use whatever criteria you want to select the books you read.
Quote:
|
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?
|
No one is saying that traditional publishers are unacceptable. Again, use whatever criteria you want. No one is forcing you to read self-published books. It doesn't take a lot of money - or even any money - to make a cover that isn't terrible. I have a lot of books to choose from, the cover is one of a number of criteria I use to determine if I will take a closer look at a book. If a cover looks like the author put no thought into it, that gives me reason to think that they may not have put that much thought into the book itself.
Reviews are not gatekeepers. A gatekeeper is someone who keeps works away from me; a publisher or a museum curator are gatekeepers. Reviews don't keep reviews from me, they simply let me know what other readers thought of the book. What a publisher thought of the book doesn't interest me much. If other readers liked it, I may like it too. If I get personal recommendations from people I know, that carries even more weight, as I know their tastes and how they match up with mine. People rely on reviews as part of their book selection process whether the book is traditionally published or self-published.
Self-published books are no different from indie bands, indie artists or indie restaurants. Use whatever criteria you like to select books.