|
Answered anyone on what matter? I've answered quite a few responses. If you think that traditional published don't provide value, then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Obviously, some authors think that way. That's one reason they go indie. Other authors find a lot of value in traditional publishers and are quite open about that opinion. Larry Correia wrote several blog posts about why he loves his publisher. It's been linked to this forum a number of times or you can google it.
If you are asking my specific opinion on if there is no difference between indie and traditional publishing in terms of quality, then my opinion is that there is a difference. It has been my experience that the average traditionally published book, from the publishers that I normally frequent, tend to be of better quality than the average indie book that I have looked at. Why do I think that? That's simply been my experience.
There are several rationals which I think tend to support my observation. First, many publishers have what is called the slush pile, unsolicited manuscripts that they receive from would be authors. Most of these manuscripts aren't very good, based on the various comments by those who have to read through them. In many cases, what you get in the indie (and fanfic world for that matter) is the unfiltered slush pile.
Are there manuscripts in the slush pile that are better than some published work? Sure. Are there bad books published? Sure. But that doesn't mean that all those manuscripts in the slush pile suddenly turned to gold. They are just as bad as before.
Second, while writing is a craft, being a good author involves talent and there really aren't all that many talented authors out there. There are a lot of authors who have the craft down, but lack the spark. One of the things that good publishers provide is a helping hand at learning the craft. That's one reason that Jim Baen used to pair an experienced author with an newbie.
Third, there is a difference between hiring an editor to look over your work and having an editor who works for the publisher. First is the issue that someone you hire wants repeat business and has to worry about individual reviews. They aren't going to be nearly as picky as one who works for the publisher. Second, an indie doesn't have to listen to the editor. It all depends on how open the author is to feedback. One can see the same phenomenon with big selling authors. The first several books are well written and tight, but later books tend to be sloppier. Once they have made it big, they don't have to accept the editor's feedback. I point to Tom Clancy and Robert Jordan as examples.
There are other things, but I think that's enough for now. You did ask, you know.
|