Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
No one has actually said they don't provide value. Stop hurling yourself at it like someone did. The question at hand is if the value they provide is still worth the price they ask (for the length of time they require).
Quote:
|
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.
|
No one's really arguing that either. Most are simply saying it's pretty irrelevant. Which it is--unless you value a competently written book you didn't enjoy at all higher than a terribly written book you didn't enjoy at all (and choose your books by throwing a dart at a dartboard with no vetting process whatsoever). Good books are preferable to bad books and no one reads for the average/competent book experience. They read for the exceptions; and develop skills to track them down wherever they may be.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The keywords there are "Jim Baen
used to". Lots of old-timey editors (who basically held the reins of the publishing world at the time) "used to" do that. But that kind of "mentoring/molding editor/publisher" has been basically extinct for quite awhile now. Where ya been?