Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffR
I've already acknowledged that there are authors who can meet the standards but choose not to submit their work to a publisher.
But for a filter to be useful, it dosn't have to be perfect. To get back to avocados, if the grocer grades the avocados into two bins where the first bin has 90% good avocados and 10% bad ones, and the second bin has 10% good avocados and 90% bad ones, then that is still very useful. I can save a lot of time by looking for good avocados in the first bin, even though the second bin might contain some exceptionally nice avocados.
(If we are talking ebooks, then the first bin might have 0.1% good ebooks and 99.9% crap, and the second bin 0.01% good and 99.99% crap, but I am still better off looking in the bin that only has 99.9% crap rather than in the one with 99.99% crap.)
|
I think this is where we disagree. My own experience is that the relevant difference between traditionally published and self-published books is that there are some really terrible self-published books. There are also some worthwhile books with some very rough edges, which some people can overlook whilst it grates on others. It is this extreme category at the bottom and these books with rough edges that traditionally published books are mostly missing.
The problem with your "filter" as I see it is that you throw the baby out with the bath water. Only a little effort is required to exclude this bottom category and even the "rough edges" category if you so desire, using methods that are logical and have been pointed out in other threads and others posts in this one. This leaves a pool of books of roughly equal quality. However, I suggest that the self-published pool is far larger and growing, and has significantly more variety.
I think you are depriving yourself of the pleasure of reading some great books, but this is of course your prerogative.