just because you have written a book does not make you an author

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Catlady

In a book, aren't grammar, spelling, and punctuation akin to the "structural integrity, strength of support walls, etc." of a house? These are basics that can be objectively judged, not matters of the consumer's personal preference or whim.

I agree. No matter how good the story idea if I pick up a book and find it full of grammar, spelling and/or punctuation errors I'm going to put that book down and reach for the next. If a book isn't well written it will fail no matter how much else it has going for it, and word of mouth alone will get the author a name of the sort they don't want.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by moonshot

But why should badly written books that I would have to pay for be allowed through the net, where as badly build houses should not?

Why should your taste or judgment limit my choices?

Originally Posted by moonshot

That's good. And it works for you. But what is your objection for not categorising vanity ebooks, or do you not have one?

You may want to remember that there is a huge difference between vanity publishing and self publishing. Vanity publishing is a system designed to extract money from the author, self publishers are looking for money from readers.

[DiapDealer]

Great. So how do we go about having a label applied that ONLY identifies books/authors who write books that fail to meet the level of "structural integrity" deemed appropriate by ... the Committee for Standards in Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation? And would Cormac McCarthy make the cut?

Or are we coming full circle to the tired old idea that only trad-published authors' books could possibly meet the fictitious committee's exacting standards? Meaning that all others will be initially assumed to be inferior until such time as they're deemed not inferior (by an unbiased third-party).

This is pointless. There can't BE a label that would include ONLY "structurally sound" books while excluding ONLY those structurally unsound. To suggest there could be only proves someone's willingness to throw babies out with the bathwater in order to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy about their own personal concepts of "book" and "author" (which nobody's really forcing them to redefine anyway).

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Oh yes, make a rule. You will certainly find the ultimate standard for book quality. Let all the books that don't meet your standard be banned.

Or burned? Isn't there a law according to which a Hitler comparison is loooong overdue in this thread? Well, I'm not making that comparison, but you're bringing me very close.

You are making a comparison; I have a point of view which you do not agree with, fair enough. So put your own view point to counter balance things.

You use the word 'banned' and then continue as though I had suggested it, so that you could insert a 'Hitler comparison' to discredit my point of view.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

if the content is bad or not.

You have missed the point. Nothing to do with the content. But it is to do with.............

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, consistency check, style, continuity, fact-checking, typos, formatting, style, accuracy etc etc.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Why should your taste or judgment limit my choices? You may want to remember that there is a huge difference between vanity publishing and self publishing. Vanity publishing is a system designed to extract money from the author, self publishers are looking for money from readers.

....both are extracting money from the end user for an inferior product.

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

In a book, aren't grammar, spelling, and punctuation akin to the "structural integrity, strength of support walls, etc." of a house? These are basics that can be objectively judged, not matters of the consumer's personal preference or whim.

Certainly you are not suggesting that perfect spelling, grammar, and punctuation equate to a good book? There is a large difference between good writing and merely correct writing.

Draw all the analogies you wish between constructing a house and constructing a novel -- but it remains true that "suspension of a roof" and "suspension of disbelief" do not share the quality of objective determination.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Great. So how do we go about having a label applied that ONLY identifies books/authors who write books that fail to meet the level of "structural integrity" deemed appropriate by ... the Committee for Standards in Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation? And would Cormac McCarthy make the cut?

Or are we coming full circle to the tired old idea that only trad-published authors' books could possibly meet the fictitious committee's exacting standards? Meaning that all others will be initially assumed to be inferior until such time as they're deemed not inferior (by an unbiased third-party).

This is pointless. There can't BE a label that would include ONLY "structurally sound" books while excluding ONLY those structurally unsound. To suggest there could be only proves someone's willingness to throw babies out with the bathwater in order to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy about their own personal concepts of "book" and "author" (which nobody's really forcing them to redefine anyway).

Simple, Amazon and the like, state that these books are self published books. (they have been typed and uploaded without being professionally proof-read or copyedited). Unless the author can prove they have been of course.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by moonshot

....both are extracting money from the end user for an inferior product.

Only if you're stupid enough to *not return* a defective book. But keep grabbing at those straws.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Only if you're stupid enough to *not return* a defective book. But keep grabbing at those straws.

So structural problems in a house is not a problem either because you only suffer if you are stupid enough not to return the house.

I mean I can wait 10 year with reading a book and the shop might not exist.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by moonshot

....both are extracting money from the end user for an inferior product.

Apart from the fact that not all people have the same definition of inferior; you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the business model of vanity publishers.

Put simply, the vanity model extracts money from the creator, not the end user. Self publishers produce books, which they then sell (or attempt to sell) to readers. Vanity publishers take money from author to publish a book, then sell copies back to the author. The end user, or reader, is not part of this picture at all.

Getting back to quality, while many self-published works do have more errors than they would had they gone through a commercial publisher, this is not true of all such books. Some are as good as anything else you can buy.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tompe

So structural problems in a house is not a problem either because you only suffer if you are stupid enough not to return the house.

I mean I can wait 10 year with reading a book and the shop might not exist.

1. If you're buying shoddy uninspected non-code house, you deserve what you get.

2. And your second paragraph is just plain silly. Nearly every business that sells to consumers has a return policy. Most of them are "No Questions Asked". If you're silly enough to wait past the return limit date to inspect your product, see 1.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

So structural problems in a house is not a problem either because you only suffer if you are stupid enough not to return the house.

I mean I can wait 10 year with reading a book and the shop might not exist.

An improperly build house is a considerably more serious matter than a bad book. The last time I checked, houses costs tens of thousands times more than a book. An improperly constructed house could collapse or catch fire, killing the occupants. A bad book is harmless. Most people are not competent to tell if a house is properly constructed or not, that's why we have building inspectors. Readers can see for themselves if a book is well-written or not. If they don't like it, they can return it.

[QuantumIguana]

If there really is a business model for putting a scarlet letter on self-published books, then perhaps some other company will provide such a service. Amazon appears to have no interest in doing so: perhaps you should do business with someone who is.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Simple, Amazon and the like, state that these books are self published books. (they have been typed and uploaded without being professionally proof-read or copyedited). Unless the author can prove they have been of course.

What would you suggest for the book that I just finished from a trad publisher that accidentally had a dog in two places at once and because of that that the plot didn't work (because if the dog were in place B, the dog would have scented on the the whodunit halfway through)?

Should we have a special marking for those books when a reader finds a gaping plot hole in a trad published book? Or what if we find terrible formatting/grammar issues? Or do those just get a pass because gosh, there probably aren't very many of them?