Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Exactly, and it's usually not even the editor that does this, it some contract slush-pile reader who then passed it up the chain where it may or may not be rejected. One it reaches high enough in the foot chain an editor pitches it at a management/publication and it may or may not get past that, it if does, then there is still marketing/profit discussions that might or might not pass muster. If in the end everything looks good the company as a whole will move forward with publishing it -- which may or may not involve extensive editing and rewriting.
To publish on the internet requires none of that. No reviews, no decisions, no editing, just a self-proclaimed writer and a website to upload his masterpiece.  |
And your point would be that somehow that old-fashioned chain of command somehow brings us better literature? That somehow, just because a writer foregoes that whole dying process, they're somehow not worthy of your time? Well, here's the newsflash, us "self-published" authors don't give a tinkers cuss for readers like you and yours. We don't want you as readers. We don't care if you read our "masterpieces". You are not the readers we want. Go back to the mainstream with you, they have lots of pretty things for you to buy, and they'll sell them to you too, at cost of course. They'll tell you what to read, because it seems that you can't make that decision for yourselves.
Us "self-published" authors want readers who can think for themselves. We want the open-minded, the ones who would throw up a middle finger to the old and embrace the new. We want passionate people, we want people who think of reading as more than just something to 'kill time'. That's who we put our passions out there for. That is why we write. That is
who we write for.
We do not write for you.
We do not need you.
We do not want you.