Smashwords: When 5 stars is not enough.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by usuallee

Umm excuse me, I implied no such thing.

Yeah, you did. Whether you meant to or not, I have no idea, but you absolutely did.

You are opining that publishers are necessarily to prevent the publishing of stuff that's dreck. Then everyone would be deprived of what the publishers think is dreck and would only get to chose from what the publisher likes. Publishers, by definition, are who make things available to the public.

If you only mean you want that filtering service personally, then what you want is not a publisher, it's a reviewer who's taste run in line with yours.
Then you are free to filter your selections through what the reviewer thinks, but all the rest is still out there for anyone who disagrees.
Those reviewers are out there, and I think THEY can serve that gate-keeping function that publishing houses have been serving.

Writer+editor+self-publishing+reviewer=

ApK

p.s. That's a hyphen in self-publishing, not a minus sign....the math works.

[piperclassique]

She's active on wattpadd; it's hypothetically possible the reviews are from her fans there. (It's likely that her reviews are from fans there.)

As someone who reads in those genres--not that one specifically, but close enough--the writing strikes me as tolerable but nothing noteworthy. Yes, it's over-the-top purple prose and heavy on the smut, but for the genre, that's normal and wanted. It could really use a proofreader/grammar-check edit pass, which means it probably needs a story edit pass as well, but I have no problem believing she has a couple-dozen devoted fans who love reading every word she puts out.

Tolerable? Are we using the same dictionary? I don't know what language this book was written in but it reads like a machine translation, and was probably dire before that.
I don't need a publisher to protect me from dreck like this, one glance is enough for me to be absolutely sure it is a waste of electrons. Even more astounding, the author expects people to pay to read this bilge. It would be hard to persuade me to read this for potfuls of money. Probably impossible.

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yeah, you did. Whether you meant to or not, I have no idea, but you absolutely did.

You are opining that publishers are necessarily to prevent the publishing of stuff that's dreck. Then everyone would be deprived of what the publishers think is dreck and would only get to chose from what the publisher likes. Publishers, by definition, are who make things available to the public.

OK Apk you are starting to annoy me. You are once again putting words in my mouth. You've really got to stop doing that. I suppose you believe you have the gift of telepathy. 1.) Don't presume to tell me what I implied or what I "meant" to say. That is beyond the pale in terms of sheer arrogance. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. 2.) I never said that publishers will never publish "dreck", or never fail to publish worthwhile works. My only point was that book that have gone through the "gatekeeping process" of being published by a publisher greatly improves my chances of getting something that is halfway decently written. That was my only point. And again, that was for me personally, I am of course not saying everyone has to do as I do.

You can be a self-pub apologist if you want. But again, you need to go by what I have actually said rather than reading all kinds of stuff into it that I didn't in fact say or even think.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by usuallee

OK Apk you are starting to annoy me. You are once again

I'll take your word that there was another time. I must not have found it very memorable.

putting words in my mouth.
You've really got to stop doing that. I suppose you believe you have the gift of telepathy. 1.) Don't presume to tell me what I implied or what I "meant"

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm reading what you wrote.
I don't have telepathy, I have the ability to understand English.
I specifically said I have no idea what you meant. I can only comment on what you wrote.

What you wrote was apparently interpreted differently than what you meant by more than one person. Maybe you should consider that the problem is with your writing, not with everyone's else's telepathy.

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose.
The second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk.
But the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."
--The Rabbi, from Lucky Number Slevin

[Lemurion]

To me, the word "necessary" makes a pretty strong statement.

Having said that, I personally will read both indie and conventionally published books, although I will admit to a preference for conventional publication. What seals it for me is that the floor is usually higher with conventional publication.

I know that the writing in any commercially published book is going to display a certain minimum level of technical proficiency. Nouns and verbs will be used correctly, words will be spelled properly, and there will be very few errors involving homonyms.

In short it won't read like it was transcribed from an audio recording by a non-native speaker. Microsoft's speech recognition engine makes fewer errors than the author of the book in the OP.

I can't guarantee that for indie books. I'll still read some of them, but I'm enough of an editor at heart that I'm going to be very picky.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'm enough of an editor at heart that I'm going to be very picky.

Exactly...I've spent the last....ummmm...few...decades catching other peoples writing mistakes as part of my job, that errors are VERY disruptive to my reading enjoyment. My eyes just naturally catch on them. The whole flow of reading stops and it interrupts the story. I can, and do, continue reading...I realize everyone makes mistakes...but when it happens over and over and over again, it just sucks....and therefore in my mind the BOOK sucks.

If there is no publisher/editor to blame, then the only one left to accept responsibility for the BOOK sucking is the AUTHOR. So...I don't buy any more books from that author.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They can and do also decide not to print excellent works that they don't think will bring in enough money, or are too controversial for them. Since I read in genres that are considered unprofitable and controversial, I'm very happy for self-publishing to be an option.

You are, of course, welcome to insist that your reading material be vetted by a publisher before you even consider it. But it's a bit rude to imply the rest of us would be better off if we put a similar filter on our reading habits.

I cannot speak for self-published stories on a whole as I don't read enough of them. But I can speak for a number of self-published eBooks with really bad (some just awful) covers. Bad covers should be banned. If the cover is bad, I'll pass over even bothering with the description.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And then there are publishers who pass on things that will eventually find a home and become very popular,.

Just look at all the record companies who are still kicking themselves for passing on The Beatles.

And somebody did publish them. And the same for books. There are very few hidden master pieces out there.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by tompe

And somebody did publish them. And the same for books. There are very few hidden master pieces out there.

You are right. There will always be companies that are willing to publish whatever gets put on their desk - regardless of the quality of the work - especially if they can make the author do all the work for them.

"You must provide us a document that will pass through our automated process so we don't have to edit (or even look at) the material. Then we will go through all of the REALLY HARD work of automatically transmitting said document to others electronically. For said really hard work, we will charge you X% of any sales..."

But those companies get known for publishing trash...and people avoid purchasing from them. I personally don't have the time or inclination to wade through all the pigswill looking for a potential pearl. I prefer to let "reviewers" do that and provide recommendations. Unfortunately, as this thread shows, we can't rely on reviews to separate the wheat from the chaff...so that means we either need a new system of review, or we just stick with purchasing our books from publishers that have a history of producing "better" books.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

You are right. There will always be companies that are willing to publish whatever gets put on their desk - regardless of the quality of the work - especially if they can make the author do all the work for them.

"You must provide us a document that will pass through our automated process so we don't have to edit (or even look at) the material. Then we will go through all of the REALLY HARD work of automatically transmitting said document to others electronically. For said really hard work, we will charge you X% of any sales..."

But those companies get known for publishing trash...and people avoid purchasing from them. I personally don't have the time or inclination to wade through all the pigswill looking for a potential pearl. I prefer to let "reviewers" do that and provide recommendations. Unfortunately, as this thread shows, we can't rely on reviews to separate the wheat from the chaff...so that means we either need a new system of review, or we just stick with purchasing our books from publishers that have a history of producing "better" books.

I think it's very important to differentiate "reviews" from "reviewers."

A book can have a ton of five-star reviews, but none of those ratings mean anything in and of themselves.

However, known reviewers can give you a lot of useful information.

Personally, I don't go searching out (wading through) indie books that often, but I'm happy to read one with good reviews from reputable reviewers.

[Yolina]

I don't look at reviews, and buy my ebooks the way I used to buy paper books by reading the blurb and having a quick glace inside... Plenty of fairly random buys that way (either indie or trad published - it's not a deciding factor for me). I'd rather get a book, read it and then if I don't like it for whatever reason then at least I know that a particular author isn't for me rather then base my purchasing decisions on other people's opinions

Edit: and in the case of the book mentioned here, based on blurb (both in term of genre and style of writing) no I wouldn't buy it!

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yeah, you did. Whether you meant to or not, I have no idea, but you absolutely did.

You are opining that publishers are necessarily to prevent the publishing of stuff that's dreck. Then everyone would be deprived of what the publishers think is dreck and would only get to chose from what the publisher likes. Publishers, by definition, are who make things available to the public.

If you only mean you want that filtering service personally, then what you want is not a publisher, it's a reviewer who's taste run in line with yours.
Then you are free to filter your selections through what the reviewer thinks, but all the rest is still out there for anyone who disagrees.
Those reviewers are out there, and I think THEY can serve that gate-keeping function that publishing houses have been serving.

It's hugely frustrating to have to do this (again). APK: let's review the transcript shall we? Because there is a huge flaw in what you continue to insist that I said. You said above that I want self-published works not to be published at all, and therefore for everyone to be deprived of works that are not published by traditional publishers.

Show me where I actually said that. You can't!

I will say this very clearly: I don't begrudge the right of people to self publish, or of readers reading those works. Never said I did. Publish away, do what you want. Can't form a coherent sentence? No matter, put your "novel" up on Smashwords, and then pay people to post positive reviews, what the hell, it's a free country right? I can't be more clear than that.

I just personally don't want to bother with self-published works. That's not saying I don't want it to exist. It's just my own personal cost/benefit analysis, nothing more. I am open to revising that opinion at any time. But, as someone else said, there are very few undiscovered gems out there. And the Beatles did in fact get a record contract in the end, as we all know.

I have spent way too much time already on clarifying people's misrepresenting of what it was that I said, so this will be my last post in this thread. I ask that APk and Elfwreck not twist and mangle my words in the future.

peace

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

You are right. There will always be companies that are willing to publish whatever gets put on their desk - regardless of the quality of the work - especially if they can make the author do all the work for them.

That was of course not what I meant. There is nothing strange with a publisher not publishing a good book since it might not fit other requirement. But a good book will nearly always find a real publisher. At least that have been the case.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by tompe

That was of course not what I meant. There is nothing strange with a publisher not publishing a good book since it might not fit other requirement. But a good book will nearly always find a real publisher. At least that have been the case.

Sorry, I should have put a paragraph return after the "You are right." (I was agreeing with you) I just got carried away with the other point I was making and didn't go back and check my transition...

Here's how it should have gone:

You are right.

Unfortunately, there will always be companies that are willing to publish whatever gets put on their desk - regardless of the quality of the work ...

Two different points: The first that a good book will find a publisher, the second that there are publishers that will publish anything no matter how good...but they get a name for trash...

Cheers!

[BeccaPrice]

Good books don't always find publishers. I submit Courtney Milan as an example. She writes historical romances, excellent ones, well-edited and self-published. But her books frequently have middle-class (rather than nobility) heros and heroines, which most publishers don't like... gotta be nobility, and better yet if it's a duke. And she writes in the early Victorian era, when most publishers want Regency.

Now grant you, I'm as fond of a Regency-era duke as the next person, but I love, love, love Courtney Milan's work. Highly recommended.