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

[QuantumIguana]

So once more. Those who have typed out words and then clicked them up to Amazon and have added a price, their work should be separated from those who have taken the art of writing more seriously and have had their work proof read, copy edited etc. etc.

You've already said that you don't have any problem finding good books to read, thus it isn't necessary to put a scarlet letter on self-published books for you to find good books. What would it actually do for anyone?

What's in it for Amazon? If it is such a good business decision to put a scarlet letter on self-published books, then why have the other e-book retailers done so? We could imagine that Amazon is making a business error, but when all doing the same thing, it's not very reasonable to think they are all making a mistake.

If they make money from self-published books, then it would be a bad business decision for them to put a scarlet letter on them. Why should Amazon make a bad business decision just to please you?

If you want to call anyone and everyone who writes something an author, fair enough, but it not the word author that I have an issue with, (although I do not see them as authors) it is as I said above.

I have written a screen play, so am I a screenwriter? I have not sent it off to anyone, it is in my desk gathering dust. Yes or no?

If no, then if I click it up to Amazon, do I then become a screenwriter.

I wasn't aware Amazon was in the business of selling scripts for movies. This is of course not analogous to self-published books. If you insist on this analogy, it would me taking the script you wrote and making a low-budget independent movie. That's the analogy to a self-published book. Just because your movie wasn't a Hollywood blockbuster doesn't mean that you aren't a scriptwriter.

You claim in one moment that the word "author" isn't your point, yet you insist on coming back to it. If it's not your point than rescind it, and move on. We can then get to the numerous flaws in your demand that Amazon put a scarlet letter on self-published books. You don't have to see people who have written books as being authors, provided you don't mind being wrong.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by alanHd

I'm not an author and I don't plan on ever writing a book. .

If only more people thought like you.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

What's in it for Amazon?.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Possibly because Amazon is making money from those books .

Great minds think alike.

...but I would add making money from a very few of those books.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Great minds think alike.

...but I would add making money from a very few of those books.

They make more money with self-published books than they would without them. If they really wanted to, Amazon could vet certain books, and only host the best of the self-published books. But that would cost them money, and wouldn't bring them in any more money.

The question stands: what's in it for Amazon? Amazon's not likely to implement your idea if it's going to cost them money.

[Katsunami]

What you and Michael Kozlowski basically want isn't a redefinition of the word 'author,' but a stamp of approval.

It's impossible to provide, because even if a book is perfect with regard to grammar, spelling, plot and everything, it can still be a crap book [i]for me[/b], even if it's in the correct genre. I read mainly fantasy, but there is fantasy I don't like, such as all the fantasy/romance vampire cross-over books.

There may be some gems in there, but they can all burn for all I care.

As you have already stated that you don't have any problems with finding good books, why are you so hell-bent on removing bad books from the shops? What does it matter? As pointed out already, there are many tools to finding good books.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

As you have already stated that you don't have any problems with finding good books, why are you so hell-bent on removing bad books from the shops? What does it matter? As pointed out already, there are many tools to finding good books.

And who gets to define Bad Books? Moonshot? Kozlowski?

No, what moonshot/Michael Kozlowski want is the end of self-published books. The rest of the traditional publishers probably also would like to see self-publish go away, but moonshot/Michael Kozlowski is just more blatant. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out again and again in this thread, it ain't gonna happen. The Jinni is out of the bottle. There's no way to go back to the good old days when traditional publishers were the only gatekeepeers and they didn't have to share the profits.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And who gets to define Bad Books? Moonshot? Kozlowski?

No, what moonshot/Michael Kozlowski want is the end of self-published books. The rest of the traditional publishers probably also would like to see self-publish go away, but moonshot/Michael Kozlowski is just more blatant. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out again and again in this thread, it ain't gonna happen. The Jinni is out of the bottle. There's no way to go back to the good old days when traditional publishers were the only gatekeepeers and they didn't have to share the profits.

And perhaps, just perhaps, if we weren't valid competition for trad books, no one would notice or care that we were there at all. The fact is, self-published books are selling right now and that threatens some entities, including publishers. We are competition. Some trad published authors embrace us as one of their own and we all help each other. Some do not. Some readers embrace all authors, some don't.

But any way you cut it, Amazon isn't likely to Scarlett Letter self-published books if they are making money and if people continue to buy them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But any way you cut it, Amazon isn't likely to Scarlett Letter self-published books if they are making money and if people continue to buy them.

Nope. Not going to happen.

Amazon doesn't care if they make a million bucks selling 100000 copies of one book or 1000 copies each of 2000 different, cheaper books.
Doesn't matter how much Kozlowzki or whoever whine or hold their breath, indie publishing isn't going away.
Tantrums don't move markets.
Consumers do.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by moonshot

You can dress up, change or alter what you think I mean if you want to.

So once more. Those who have typed out words and then clicked them up to Amazon and have added a price, their work should be separated from those who have taken the art of writing more seriously and have had their work proof read, copy edited etc. etc.

If you want to call anyone and everyone who writes something an author, fair enough, but it not the word author that I have an issue with, (although I do not see them as authors) it is as I said above.

I have written a screen play, so am I a screenwriter? [...]

(Bolding mine)

See, that wasn't so hard. Despite what you said in the OP, it seems that the word author isn't a problem for you after all.

There have been enough analogies, so I'll leave the screenwriter alone - it's not needed.

Now, why do you want Amazon to segregate books in this way?

You've said on other posts that you don't have trouble finding good things to read, so why do you care?

Amazon already segregates books in various ways: best seller lists; Best Books of 2013; Best Books of the Month; Award Winners; Award Winning Children's Books; Book Club Picks; and more. Why do you also want this other segregation? Who benefits? Not you apparently, you can already find enough good books. Not Amazon apparently, or they would already be doing it. Not the majority of other posters here, it would seem, or your OP would have received more support. So where's the advantage?

[Katsunami]

The only advantage would lie with the BPH's, because if they manage to create a segregation, then they would effectively stick a "bad" badge onto selfpub.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

What you and Michael Kozlowski basically want isn't a redefinition of the word 'author,' but a stamp of approval.

It's impossible to provide, because even if a book is perfect with regard to grammar, spelling, plot and everything, it can still be a crap book [i]for me[/b], even if it's in the correct genre. I read mainly fantasy, but there is fantasy I don't like, such as all the fantasy/romance vampire cross-over books.

There may be some gems in there, but they can all burn for all I care.

As you have already stated that you don't have any problems with finding good books, why are you so hell-bent on removing bad books from the shops? What does it matter? As pointed out already, there are many tools to finding good books.

I agree and as I have said previously, I have read books that have had loads of 5 star reviews and I though were c**p and some I gave up on.

I have never read a fantasy or vampire book apart from Dracula, which is a classic. But that's is not to say I would not enjoy one if I did read it. 'Half Bad' is the latest vampire book, again I referred to it a few posts ago. The author was interviewed last week on the BBC. It was her first book, the script was accepted straight away and the film rights were bought before the book even got released. Vampires must be 'hot' at the moment.

They say that the first 50 pages are what count; to get a publishers interest or a film company to take notice, since most big film companies rely on publishers to send them the scripts before publication. If I were an author I would want to make sure that my script was as perfect as it could be before I uploaded it to Amazon or what ever.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

As you have already stated that you don't have any problems with finding good books, why are you so hell-bent on removing bad books from the shops? What does it matter? As pointed out already, there are many tools to finding good books.

What does anything in life matter.

Removing 'bad books' yes; bad writing not bad story telling.

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by gmw

(Bolding mine)

See, that wasn't so hard. Despite what you said in the OP, it seems that the word author isn't a problem for you after all.

...and you know it's not a problem, it is the quality of the work produced by people who, as I previously said, write, click and say 'hey look everyone I'm an author'. If the use of the word author is an issue then any word will do to separate those with talent.

Originally Posted by gmw

There have been enough analogies, so I'll leave the screenwriter alone - it's not needed.

Ok, but it was good though.

Originally Posted by gmw

Now, why do you want Amazon to segregate books in this way?.

Well I could reverse the question and say why not? Both reasons have validity.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The question stands: what's in it for Amazon? Amazon's not likely to implement your idea if it's going to cost them money.

It's not my idea, but no that is not the issue. It is whether they should.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Instead of criticizing my criterion, give me yours. Seriously, is it anyone who has ever put pen to paper, for any reason, anytime, anywhere?

If someone introduces himself as an author, what does that mean to you?

I know that I call myself a singer/songwriter because I do that. I'm quite comfortable with the label even though I don't perform the task professionally.

However, I do get what you mean about the title of author. I am actually the author of many things. I've authored hundreds of professional documents which you could say are published within the confines of the organisation in which I've worked. These documents clearly label me as the author. I have my review site where I publish reviews of indie/self-pubbed ebooks. I was once author/maintainer of a user manual/guide for some music software. I've written two or three magazine articles for a UK music magazine. I've even had some poetry published (on a site that no longer exists). You could argue that the writing and publishing of professional documents (requirements documents, designs, deployment plans, discovery documents, support documents etc..) actually make me a professional author as I obviously derive an income from that activity. And yet, it has never occurred to me to identify myself as an author.

Of course, this isn't a proof of anything and probably says a lot more about me than about the correct use of the word. But it's interesting that I'm happy to use the terms "singer" and "songwriter" literally, but subconsciously narrow the definition of the term "author" - at least when applying it to myself.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by moonshot

...and you know it's not a problem, it is the quality of the work produced by people who, as I previously said, write, click and say 'hey look everyone I'm an author'. If the use of the word author is an issue then any word will do to separate those with talent.
[...]
Well I could reverse the question and say why not? Both reasons have validity.

The thing with quality is that it's highly subjective - which is largely why you have so many people objecting to the idea of having someone making these decisions for them.

I'm not trying to say that there isn't a lot of rubbish out there - and yes, the ease of self-publishing makes it easier for that crap to appear in volume - but there's always been a lot of crap out there, even when traditional publishing was the only game in town. But if you look at the recent AuthorEarnings reports you'll find that the public filter system seems to be working. Quality self-published work (as defined by sales/popularity*) is making it to the top of the pyramid. This, to my mind and apparently Amazon's too, proves that the sort of segregation you are asking for would actually be counterproductive. The sorts of rules you have suggested (hardback etc.) are either irrelevant or impractical to enforce, better to let the public work it out - and they are doing it. You or I may not always agree with what the public at large choose to ignore or promote, but that's not the point, and never has been.

* Defining quality by popularity is obviously contentious, but it is difficult to find any other reliable measure - because most other possibilities are so subjective.

[Katsunami]

In short, the buyers/readers create the segregation themselves. As soon one or two comments complain about huge mistakes, the book will sink. It's the old thing again: if you have a lot already, it's easy to get more of it. (Such as sales, rating, or even money.)