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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Simple, Amazon and the like, state that these books are self published books.

Are you incapable of looking at the name of the publisher in the details of the book? Or are you still pretending your interest is in protecting others from their own stupidity?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jandrew

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.

No, I am not. However, building blocks are building blocks, no matter what they're used to construct.

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.

And I did not claim they did. But whether one has properly used its or it's, for example, can be determined objectively.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Are you incapable of looking at the name of the publisher in the details of the book? Or are you still pretending your interest is in protecting others from their own stupidity?

Since he's apparently incapable of looking at critics, reviews, recommendations, listening to word of mouth, etc. before making a purchase, I would gather that he is incapable of looking at the name of the publisher before purchasing.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Since he's apparently incapable of looking at critics, reviews, recommendations, listening to word of mouth, etc. before making a purchase, I would gather that he is incapable of looking at the name of the publisher before purchasing.

He does seem to be in love with that silver platter.

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

No, I am not. However, building blocks are building blocks, no matter what they're used to construct.



And I did not claim they did. But whether one has properly used its or it's, for example, can be determined objectively.

But what point are you trying to make by bringing up the objective determination of correct spelling and grammar in the context of authorship?

I mean, if only error-free books (in terms of spelling, grammar, and punctuation) were published, what would be different (besides libraries being vastly smaller)? We could still have some number of error-free books by traditional publishers, vanity publishers, and self-publishers. And, we could still have no guarantee that any given error-free book was worth reading. And, we could still be sitting here reading a thread entitled "Just because you have written an error-free book does not make you an author" for that matter.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by moonshot

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.

Well, I only suggested the comparison, but in a way that somehow also means making it, of course. Sorry for that - I actually had pondered on making a joke about the overdue Hitler comparison long before you made the post I replied to - and then I couldn't resist, because you absolutely did say you want to ban books. If I may requote the quote I quoted [oops, I'm sure that was an unsound sentence; what about outright silliness, btw? Would that be allowed to cross your line in the sand?]:

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?

So here you are: You don't want badly written books allowed through the net. Now go ahead and explain the difference between not allowing and banning.
My own point of view, to answer your question, is that every godawful piece of crappy writing should be "allowed through the net" - I'll manage to pick the good stuff myself, thank you. I don't want my reading chosen by anyone imposing their standards. Thank you very much indeed.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

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?

The error of a 'dog in two places' is not justification for a badly written book.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Well, I only suggested

So here you are: You don't want badly written books allowed through the net. Now go ahead and explain the difference between not allowing and banning.
My own point of view, to answer your question, is that every godawful piece of crappy writing should be "allowed through the net" - I'll manage to pick the good stuff myself, thank you. I don't want my reading chosen by anyone imposing their standards. Thank you very much indeed.

Not allowing a book to be 'sold' until it is presentable is not the same as banning. You should be free to walk down your street ...... as long as you are wearing clothes.

Its just a case of standards being meet.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by moonshot

The error of a 'dog in two places' is not justification for a badly written book.

It's very badly written. The entire mystery hinged on the dog "sniffing" out the culprit--and the dog was in the room with said evidence at one point in the book--and also supposedly in another room at the very same time. The double placement of the dog alone made the event entirely too noticeable. Then you get to the end of the book and the dog is "smelling" the evidence through a car door, no less--supposedly for the first time.

There were other sloppy issues with the book as well, but in this case the entire mystery went down the drain. So if someone is going to police the quality of the word "author" or publishing, I guess we need a way to scarlet letter those that don't make the grade that happen to be trad published.

Or, if you believe self-publishing is the problem, just don't buy self-published books. They are fairly easy to identify. There's really no huge need for Amazon to mark them for you and since they are making quite a bit of money from self-published books, they have no incentive to put them in a special category.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Not allowing a book to be 'sold' until it is presentable is not the same as banning. You should be free to walk down your street ...... as long as you are wearing clothes.

Its just a case of standards being meet.

Surely you mean banning the book "until it is presentable"?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Surely you mean banning the book "until it is presentable"?

Come on... He doesn't want the books banned. He just wants to prevent them from being published. That's different.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by moonshot

But why should badly written books that I would have to pay for be allowed through the net

Who are these nefarious individuals? Forcing you to buy books that you don't want? A pox on them!

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Who are these nefarious individuals? Forcing you to buy books that you don't want? A pox on them!

Well, okay then. Let's ban these low life cretins or, rather, prevent them from publishing. Let's allow you, moonshot, to save us from ourselves and our inability to determine books acceptable to your standards. How do you propose to do this? Who will be in charge of our reading choices?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by BelleZora

Well, okay then. Let's ban these low life cretins or, rather, prevent them from publishing. Let's allow you, moonshot, to save us from ourselves and our inability to determine books acceptable to your standards. How do you propose to do this? Who will be in charge of our reading choices?

Come on. It's obvious that moonshot is protecting us from ourselves. Us proles have no idea what constitutes *literature* and he's trying to convince us that only the top 4/5/6 (whatever it is this week) publishers know what real art is. We should be bowing down to his great intelligence and just shut up.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jandrew

But what point are you trying to make by bringing up the objective determination of correct spelling and grammar in the context of authorship?

I mean, if only error-free books (in terms of spelling, grammar, and punctuation) were published, what would be different (besides libraries being vastly smaller)? We could still have some number of error-free books by traditional publishers, vanity publishers, and self-publishers. And, we could still have no guarantee that any given error-free book was worth reading. And, we could still be sitting here reading a thread entitled "Just because you have written an error-free book does not make you an author" for that matter.

Look, I didn't make the initial comparision with a house; someone else did and said there were objective standards that apply to a building. All I'm saying is that there are likewise objective standards that apply to a book, and these are grammar, punctuation, spelling, and the like.

You are jumping from that simple statement to all sorts of silly assumptions and conclusions.

I don't care if you want to apply objective standards to a book. If you want to read unpunctuated and misspelled gibberish, fine, read it. But don't pretend that certain minimal standards of language and communication are nonexistent.