Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Nobody has suggested that to be so.
The specific claim made by kenny is that the quality of books that get promoted here at MR is not representative of the wider self-published market. That's the statement that I find peculiar. If we take 100 self-published books that get promoted at MR, why should the average quality of those 100 books be better or worse than 100 self-published books that are promoted elsewhere?
|
Perhaps it wasn't immediately evident, but I was really following up on your previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I've certainly looked at a lot of it. I look at the Amazon sample of every book that goes in the "Self-Promotion" forum here at MR, for example. The overwhelming majority contain sufficient errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation - or just plain poor production - in those sample pages, that I feel no wish to read them.
|
I don't necessarily agree with kennyc about the general high quality of the self-promotions forum.
I do think it is an irrelevant point. You seem to be hung up on judging self-publishing based on a random sampling of books; the fact that your assessment is (IMHO) accurate
for that random sampling, does not, to me, justify the conclusions you seem to have made.
If I judged trad-pub based on a random sample of books, I would give up on them in disgust. Maybe not because of second-grade-spelling issues, but I would probably say "these people have taken leave of their senses if they think this is remotely interesting. I'd rather kill myself than read anything you write."
And considering that trad-pub is supposed to be "gatekeepers", I have seen a couple books that should never have been published. And it wasn't the author's fault that it had consistent spelling anyway.
