Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
There really is a noticeable difference in quality there; it doesn't mean indie books are bad reads, but copyediting is the one place they do normally fall down, and that's enough of a difference for people who cannot stand those kinds of errors.
|
But that's exactly my point: the "floor" just doesn't matter. Nobody reads from the floor (commercial or indie). It only takes one single indie where the copyediting/proofing is on par with trad-published books (and I've encountered more than one), to make the bad "in general" indie copyediting/proofing rule irrelevant.
"Embracing" indies doesn't have to mean suffering through scads of horrible dreck. It can simply mean; stop using the path to publication as means to summarily dismiss books/authors that have garnered the notice and/or recommendation of people whose tastes have previously aligned with your own on occasion.
I'll grant you that "on the whole," self-published books contain more errors than traditionally published books do ("on the whole"). My point is; who cares? If there's even a handful that are on par (and there
are), they don't deserve to be dismissed with the dreck. And they're not hard find... they're the ones that you
hear about (whose premise/genre interests you, of course). Who cares about "on the whole" when nobody's being asked to read "the whole?"