Self-published books

[dickloraine]

I don't know how it is called, but what we see here is a psychological problem: we "freeze" if we have to much alternatives before us. We need to learn how to cope with it. Just consider a super market. You want to buy peanuts and there is a whole shelf full with them. Which one do I pick? We all have established some "rules" how we pick. Some just grab the most expensive one, trusting it is the "best", some pick the cheapest, because they are all the same, and a myriad of methods between. None of these methods is perfect, but they allow for a decision. People that have no experience with that kind of alternatives are nearly unable to choose.

Likewise some methods of choosing books that did work before for some do not work anymore. They need to learn new ways of choosing or ignore these self published books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

That is fairly close. Another way to put it is that I want to consider books by authors who have proven they are at least able to meet the minimum standards set by publishers.

I accept that some authors are capable of meeting those standards but choose not to submit their work to a publisher, but I am happy to miss out on reading those authors if it means I can exclude the large numbers of self-published authors that are not capable of meeting even such minimal standards.

I would like this also.

Also, I am not looking for books that are just OK. I am trying to discover new authors that are really good. And the probability to make such a discovery is greater if I look at books that have been filtered and hopefully actively worked on by a professional editor.

Fixing typos and grammar is just the first step. What you also need to get right is the structure and the voice or voices in the book and so on.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

This is of course your prerogative. Personally I regard whether something has been traditionally published as a very poor criterion. Big Publishing's track record as curator or gatekeeper is IMHO woeful. So much absolute garbage has been published by them and so much worthwhile excluded. I wouldn't trust them to shop for my avocados!

Worthwhile? I do not want to read worthwhile books. I want to read really good books. It is easy to avoid the garbage but it is harder to distinguish a mediocre book and a really good one without reading it.

Some garbage is published just to make money so you can take risks and find and publish really good books. Garbage is not the problem. The just so and so books are the problem.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A serious author will use the same services regardless of whether or a book is traditionally- or self-published. Ie they will employ an editor, a cover designer, etc. Only an idiot publishes an unedited book, but unfortunately there are idiots in every walk of life.

Yes, but will they listen to the editor when what is required is re-working the whole structure of the book and it will take 3 months to do it?

I doubt it.

I do not really see how an editor can work with an author to develop the authors skill if the author is paying the editor and are not forced to listen.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

I would like this also.

Also, I am not looking for books that are just OK. I am trying to discover new authors that are really good. And the probability to make such a discovery is greater if I look at books that have been filtered and hopefully actively worked on by a professional editor.

Fixing typos and grammar is just the first step. What you also need to get right is the structure and the voice or voices in the book and so on.

Professional editors are not the sole province of traditional publishing, and are becoming less and less so. Many Indies now contract for editing and other services. And you will not find really good books if they have been "filtered" out altogether, as many of them have been under traditional publishing.

Also, what is "really good" is highly subjective, and it is highly unlikely that what you regard as "really good" is the same as what those doing the filtering regard as really good.

It is your prerogative to choose to limit yourself to traditonally published books, or to books selected for you by any other person or group you may choose. Personally I think the BPH were terrible curators/gatekeepers, and even the wild west type situation prevailing now in what is clearly a period of transition is infinitely preferable to their lamentable stewardship.

Fortunately, we are all getting what we want at the moment. You are free to stick to traditional publishing, I am free to take advantage of my new found freedom from them. You believe your way is better, I believe my way is.

[booklover6]

I just looked at one in Amazon's top 100 free books. 4 glowing reviews. One said she read the whole thing in one sitting! Supposedly 517 pages. So, wow, must be a fast reader, yeah? I checked the sample. Not very good. Obviously 4 friends reviewed it. Gag me, not even worth getting for free!

[darryl]

Originally Posted by booklover6

I just looked at one in Amazon's top 100 free books. 4 glowing reviews. One said she read the whole thing in one sitting! Supposedly 517 pages. So, wow, must be a fast reader, yeah? I checked the sample. Not very good. Obviously 4 friends reviewed it. Gag me, not even worth getting for free!

Agreed. Reviews are such a mess that I tend to avoid them altogether. But a quick read of the Sample is vary valuable.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I don't know how it is called, but what we see here is a psychological problem: we "freeze" if we have to much alternatives before us. We need to learn how to cope with it. Just consider a super market. You want to buy peanuts and there is a whole shelf full with them. Which one do I pick? We all have established some "rules" how we pick. Some just grab the most expensive one, trusting it is the "best", some pick the cheapest, because they are all the same, and a myriad of methods between. None of these methods is perfect, but they allow for a decision. People that have no experience with that kind of alternatives are nearly unable to choose.

Likewise some methods of choosing books that did work before for some do not work anymore. They need to learn new ways of choosing or ignore these self published books.

The term is Paralysis by Analysis and it is common in people who move from restricted societies to afluent scocieties. Faced with a choice they are unprepared to deal with they choose not to choose out of fear of choosing poorly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Analysis paralysis or paralysis by analysis is an anti-pattern, the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, while on the way to a better solution.[1]

The phrase describes a situation in which the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision, or an informal or non-deterministic situation where the sheer quantity of analysis overwhelms the decision-making process itself, thus preventing a decision. The phrase applies to any situation where analysis may be applied to help make a decision and may be a dysfunctional element of organizational behavior. This is often phrased as paralysis by analysis, in contrast to extinct by instinct (making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut-reaction).

There are ways to learn how to deal with this situation.

Like this set:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss...cision-making/

[meeera]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The term is Paralysis by Analysis

I don't have Paralysis Analysis. I just choose not to spend hours of my time clicking around Amazon, reading chapter after chapter of illiterate drivel, in the hopes of being the very first one to find a hitherto-hidden nugget of gold. It's not freezing or anxiety or fear, it's an informed consumer choice.

If there is a shining nugget in there that's up my alley, it will eventually come to my attention: either via recommendation from bookish friends, the bookish blogs I read, or the tradpub imprints I've gotten along with well in the past.

[mr ploppy]

I don't know what sort of books people are reading, but I've only read one corporation owned book published this century that didn't have any mistakes in it, and that was the 4th book in a series of 7.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

Professional editors are not the sole province of traditional publishing, and are becoming less and less so. Many Indies now contract for editing and other services. And you will not find really good books if they have been "filtered" out altogether, as many of them have been under traditional publishing.

Really. All examples people usually give for this are books that are published by traditionally publishers.

What examples are you thinking about?

[DiapDealer]

We did this whole rigamarole again and I missed it?! Oh well. I guess all the same valid and invalid points got raised without me chiming in anyway!

Love how some people still delude themselves into believing that "bad" is somehow less subjective then "good," though (and that competence without talent has value).

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gastan

Has anyone else come to loathe the very idea of self-published books? I began reading them for two reasons. #1: price. They are a great bargain, money-wise.

Ah, the fallacy of thinking that something that has little or no monetary cost is cheap or free. Books in general are pretty cheap for the value they provide; my free time, however, is limited. Far too limited for my book choices to be determined by price.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

My main problem with judging a book by it's publisher is, that the only thing being tradpubbed tells me is that it received a baseline competent proofreading to fix grammar and spelling gaffes.

It also tells you, at a minimum, that a corporation thinks they can make money producing it. That might not indicate quality, but at least it indicates a level of popularity or liking.

Originally Posted by darryl

This leaves a pool of books of roughly equal quality.

Whoa! Not so fast. I think you jumped over a chasm to come to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Tradpubs select books they *think* will sell.

Yup. Which implies that a significant number of people will like it, or expect to like it to the extent they're willing to plunk down money for it. Most indies can't meet that qualification; they're just an exercise in vanity and ignorance.

Originally Posted by tompe

Some garbage is published just to make money so you can take risks and find and publish really good books. Garbage is not the problem. The just so and so books are the problem.

I agree with this. This is what always disappoints me when I think back over my reading; I wish I had chosen better books. Just yesterday I abandoned a highly-praised book as just so much middle-brow junk. And not that there's anything wrong with that. My taste isn't perfect and I have my own fluffy favorites.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

We did this whole rigamarole again and I missed it?! Oh well. I guess all the same valid and invalid points got raised without me chiming in anyway!

You were here in spirit the whole time:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In the words of DiapDealer (this just sums it all up, it's my new quotable quote),

"I don't value a well-written book that I didn't like any more than a badly-written book that I didn't like."

[DiapDealer]

Nice!