Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot
...and you know it's not a problem, it is the quality of the work produced by people who, as I previously said, write, click and say 'hey look everyone I'm an author'. If the use of the word author is an issue then any word will do to separate those with talent.
[...]
Well I could reverse the question and say why not? Both reasons have validity.
|
The thing with quality is that it's highly subjective - which is largely why you have so many people objecting to the idea of having someone making these decisions for them.
I'm not trying to say that there isn't a lot of rubbish out there - and yes, the ease of self-publishing makes it easier for that crap to appear in volume - but there's always been a lot of crap out there, even when traditional publishing was the only game in town. But if you look at the recent
AuthorEarnings reports you'll find that the public filter system seems to be working. Quality self-published work (as defined by sales/popularity*) is making it to the top of the pyramid. This, to my mind and apparently Amazon's too, proves that the sort of segregation you are asking for would actually be counterproductive. The sorts of rules you have suggested (hardback etc.) are either irrelevant or impractical to enforce, better to let the public work it out - and they are doing it. You or I may not always agree with what the public at large choose to ignore or promote, but that's not the point, and never has been.
* Defining quality by popularity is obviously contentious, but it is difficult to find any other reliable measure - because most other possibilities are so subjective.