Sue Grafton: "The universe will come to your aid."

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, definitely. Because enhancing the totality is one of the most important functions that a good editor contributes to.

And I do not read books in a way that I enjoy part of it and that is enough. I enjoy the whole book or I do not enjoy the whole book. I enjoyed a lot of episodes of Battlestar Galactica but the ending made these episodes bad retroactively and I really think the hours spent watching them was totally wasted and I felt cheated since I could have wathed a series that was good instead.

And we also have the case that the totality is OK but it could have been brilliant. Which is also bad since I do not want to read books that are just OK but also that I missed a potentially brilliant book.

I fail to see how self- vs. traditional-publishing has any bearing on your logic or apprehensions. Not trying to be difficult. I don't particularly like bad endings either... I just don't think traditional publishing brings anything extra-special to the table that would ensure "better," more satisfying endings. Nor do I think traditional publishers provide continuity editors whose job it is to scour earlier chapters (or books in a long series) for every niggling little inconsistency that a later passage (or book) might introduce. I believe those days are long gone. Big picture/plot continuity... maybe... maybe... for-their-highest-profile-authors maybe. "You described your sidekick's laser blaster as having a green beam in chapter 1, but in chapter 21 it's described as red" kind of continuity... not so much. Plus, you've very casually dismissed the possibility that a self-published author could have a "good editor." Why?

Frankly, I think you're trying a bit too hard to dismiss books/authors that clearly have no bearing/effect on your personal reading choices. You don't really get any say about the quality of books/endings you've already decided you can't risk reading.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, definitely. Because enhancing the totality is one of the most important functions that a good editor contributes to.

And I do not read books in a way that I enjoy part of it and that is enough. I enjoy the whole book or I do not enjoy the whole book. I enjoyed a lot of episodes of Battlestar Galactica but the ending made these episodes bad retroactively and I really think the hours spent watching them was totally wasted and I felt cheated since I could have wathed a series that was good instead.

And we also have the case that the totality is OK but it could have been brilliant. Which is also bad since I do not want to read books that are just OK but also that I missed a potentially brilliant book.

When it comes to the totality issue, I probably end up reading more "bad" (to me) trad books through to the end--because I expect that an editor oversaw it. Usually! with self-published, I see some of the book coming apart at the seams earlier and put it down. But with trad books I'm fooled. I would say on the margin that I personally finish more bad books that are traditionally published because I hold out some false hope that an editor has kept the writer from some of the basic problems of plot holes, ridiculous plots that go off the rails, a complete lack of plot or a fake plot, etc.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

However, it only takes minutes (or less) to determine if it's by an author who has absolutely no skills.

Sometimes it takes me half the book. Or more.

D. H. Lawrence's novels are loaded with trite phrases, and you'll often find them in the first page or two. But one can make too much of that:

An Interview With Evelyn Waugh

D.H. Lawrence was a bad writer. "Philosophically he was rot," Mr. Waugh said, "and as a craftsman he was frightful."

Despite this, Lawrence is worth finishing.

Re some of the other stuff in the thread, this seems about right:

Somebody becomes a millionaire overnight and someone else cannot even publish. It is perfectly possible that the quality of work of these two writers is very similar. The same book may have a quite different fate in different countries. Any notion of justice in the incomes of artists is naive.

If a book doesn't get great mainstream reviews, I'm not going to read it. Since the New York Times, Atlantic, etc., don't often review self-published books, I'm likely to miss out on them. Unfair? I suppose, but there are so many books with rave mainstream reviews I've yet to read.

If the topic interests me, and it gets a great review in the New Republic, and by a near-miracle it's self-published, I will read it. Or, more accurately, I will start it.

The miracle will not be that a self-published book is wonderful, but that mainstream reviewers noticed it. If big publishers are truly going extinct, this will change. However, if I can be allowed a Captain Obvious moment, predicting industry extinctions is an inexact science.

[BeccaPrice]

I depend a lot on reviews, but mostly on review blogs, ones that I have learned I can trust. I may not always agree with their grades, but from their summary of the good points and bad points, I can always tell whether I'll like a book or not - and that, to me, makes a good review.

I truly don't care whether something is trad or indy published - I care about whether I'll like the book. A lot of times, though, I'll read a great review, and think that I'd really love that book -only to find that it's (to my mind) over-priced, and I decide against getting it. I've got plenty to read, so that's not a problem for me.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I fail to see how self- vs. traditional-publishing has any bearing on your logic or apprehensions. Not trying to be difficult. I don't particularly like bad endings either... I just don't think traditional publishing brings anything extra-special to the table that would ensure "better," more satisfying endings. Nor do I think traditional publishers provide continuity editors whose job it is to scour earlier chapters (or books in a long series) for every niggling little inconsistency that a later passage (or book) might introduce. I believe those days are long gone. Big picture/plot continuity... maybe... maybe... for-their-highest-profile-authors maybe. "You described your sidekick's laser blaster as having a green beam in chapter 1, but in chapter 21 it's described as red" kind of continuity... not so much. Plus, you've very casually dismissed the possibility that a self-published author could have a "good editor." Why?

Frankly, I think you're trying a bit too hard to dismiss books/authors that clearly have no bearing/effect on your personal reading choices. You don't really get any say about the quality of books/endings you've already decided you can't risk reading.

This is exactly what the copy editor does. And the major publishers certainly do still use copy editors, and not just for their highest profile authors.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If a book doesn't get great mainstream reviews, I'm not going to read it. Since the New York Times, Atlantic, etc., don't often review self-published books, I'm likely to miss out on them. Unfair? I suppose, but there are so many books with rave mainstream reviews I've yet to read.

I think that's perfectly fair, actually. You're not making any blanket statements about quality, skill or work ethic. You've merely described a general personal requirement you have for books to find their way onto your (potential) TBR list: great mainstream reviews.

I only take issue with the "self-published automatically equals trash" and "traditionally published always equals better" mentality.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I can learn quite a lot about a book in advance. I can look at the cover. If the cover is poor, I pass. I can looks the blurb. If the blurb is filled with typos, or if it doesn't look interesting, I pass. If I'm still interested, I can download the sample. If I lose interest, I stop reading. If I'm still interested by the end of the sample, I buy.

And then there's reviews and recomendations that help me decide if I want to buy the book. I don't have to be the first guinea pig to try the book. I do the same things with traditionally published books. I've never picked up a book from the shelf and said "It's traditionally published, so it has to be good!" There's really no fundamental difference between indie books and any other artistic endeavor. But if you only want to read traditionally published books, don't let me stop you.

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I depend a lot on reviews, but mostly on review blogs, ones that I have learned I can trust. I may not always agree with their grades, but from their summary of the good points and bad points, I can always tell whether I'll like a book or not - and that, to me, makes a good review.

So it's fine and dandy to weed out books by their covers and by reviews, but it's somehow narrow-minded and petty (paraphrasing someone's earlier comment) to weed out books by whether they are traditionally or self-published?

An author doesn't have the money to hire an artist or is a washout when it comes to graphic design, and therefore his work doesn't deserve to be read? Why is that a legitimate criterion, but an insistence on traditional publication is not? Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Catlady

An author doesn't have the money to hire an artist or is a washout when it comes to graphic design, and therefore his work doesn't deserve to be read? Why is that a legitimate criterion, but an insistence on traditional publication is not? Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?

How do we know that people aren't paying reviewers to give good reviews?

Cue the joke about reviewers being paid to give five stars, and critics getting paid less to give an honest opinion.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?

When a Random House imprint picked up E. L. James, were they making an artistic judgement or a business decision?

I'm not cynical about Random House. They publish many terrific books. But the only way I know to get a handle, in advance, on whether the book is good is to read the reviews.

I more trust reviews when the reviewer is being paid, even a little, by a periodical which values its independence and reputation. However, I suppose most unpaid reviewers also have integrity.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by teh603

How do we know that people aren't paying reviewers to give good reviews?

Cue the joke about reviewers being paid to give five stars, and critics getting paid less to give an honest opinion.

Kirkus charges around $500 to review a self-published book.
They've made a business of it.
Like any business, they would like repeat customers.

As a reader, I would never trust such a review.
I'm not a writer but if I were, I wouldn't use them. I'd rather take my chances with the Amazon and Goodreads crowds.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But in the last 10 years I see mistakes of a different nature--cars in two places at once, something contradicting a previous paragraph--things that I think some editors would have caught. They simply aren't caught as often anymore.

Quite true - I'm currently reading one where there are three different spellings of a character's name, and I'm finding it very annoying. But is it a case that editors aren't as good about catching mistakes, or that editing is being skipped altogether? I suspect that in at least some cases, it's the latter - for instance, in this same book, most of the mistakes are homonyms, which a spellchecker woudn't pick up, but any half-decent editor should.

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is exactly what the copy editor does. And the major publishers certainly do still use copy editors, and not just for their highest profile authors.

TBH, I'm not entirely sure that's true any longer. IME, and as others have pointed out, publishers are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay for copyeditors, even though readers are becoming far more aware of the importance of editing and proofreading, if the increasing number of book reviews mentioning the dire spelling and grammar are anything to go by.

Originally Posted by teh603

How do we know that people aren't paying reviewers to give good reviews

We don't, and there are definitely cases of that as the post above shows. I generally ignore reiews from people who seem to review hundreds of books (where do they get the time to read them, for starters??). However, the longer the book stays around, the more likely it is that the reviews will include genuine ones. There's also the flip side -the books with poor reviews are the ones with honest reviews!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

When a Random House imprint picked up E. L. James, were they making an artistic judgement or a business decision?

Uh, business decision, right?

You hit the nail on the head: traditionalists like to pretend that publishers select books on quality and artistic merit and that anything they pass over is by definition substandard.

Wrong!

Publishers pick what they *think* will *sell*. Quality is irrelevant. Artistic merit is irrelevant. They may love a book but if they think it won't sell to the masses they'll move on to the next ghost-written celebrity project from a "name" Agency. All they care is whether the book will have enough mass appeal to sell in volume and produce a big enough return on their investment to support them in the style to which they have become accustomed to.

Success or failure is defined by sales volume. They brag about it! "Bestsellers" is what they want!

Now, the thing is, there are a *lot* of people whose primary book buying criterion is popularity. They are not avid readers picking up several books a month but rather casual readers picking up a couple of books a year. Those readers make up something like 80% of book buyers and what they buy is what others like them buy. To *them* mass popularity equals quality. They buy books because "everybody else is buying it". Keeping up with the Joneses, literary edition. Novelty. Titilation. Gossip. Cheap thrills. A substitute for braodcast TV in the "slow" summer months. ("Summer reading" keeeps popping up in the rare bookstore ads, doesn't it?) Some of their buys are genuinely good books but that isn't why they buy. Some books are popular for being popular just as some celebrities are famous for... being famous.

The big publishers today are primarily purveyors of transitory mass entertainment; big today, forgotten tomorrow...until the movie adaptation comes out.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? Their ever-increasing interest in money; squeezing authors for it, raising prices, conspiring to limit competition. Bad-mouthing small and independent publishers. And of course, seeking to marginalize self-publishers. They've seen what cable has done to broadcast TV, how narrow-focus channels and content have eroded the mass appeal of the lowest-common denominator broadcast networks. And they see self-publishers doing that.

Traditionalist do understand that while the odds of one self-published title selling a million copies is near zero, the odds of a 100 self-pubbed t1tles selling 10,000 each is significant and the odds of 1000 selling a million in aggregate are practically a given. And that is a million sales that won't go to a trad-pubbed title.

That is an effect we are seeing, no?
Best sellers aren't selling as well as they used to.

Which makes me wonder just how well Grafton's latest are moving?
(Hey, *she* gratuitously brought up self-publishing into the interview! It apparently has been on her mind...)

Sadly, I smell fear.
Unnecesary fear, too.

Grafton says she has six unpublished early works from before she became a peddler of her cookie-cutter mystery series; with *her* name and brand behind them, she could self-publish them and find out how good they really are.
Let the "universe" tell her if the publishers were right or not to reject her.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So it's fine and dandy to weed out books by their covers and by reviews, but it's somehow narrow-minded and petty (paraphrasing someone's earlier comment) to weed out books by whether they are traditionally or self-published?

An author doesn't have the money to hire an artist or is a washout when it comes to graphic design, and therefore his work doesn't deserve to be read? Why is that a legitimate criterion, but an insistence on traditional publication is not? Why are reviewers acceptable gatekeepers, but traditional publishers are not?

It's fine to weed out self-published. The topic was centered around whether a writer should self-publish--so I think the difference is whether someone is saying, "all self-published books are that way because they aren't good enough" versus "I choose not to buy self-published."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

There's also the flip side -the books with poor reviews are the ones with honest reviews!

And negative reviews can be very useful if they go into any kind of detail.
Over at The Digital Reader Blog they had an interesting conversation on negative reviews:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...ative-reviews/

[BearMountainBooks]

Traditionalist do understand that while the odds of one self-published title selling a million copies is near zero, the odds of a 100 self-pubbed t1tles selling 10,000 each is significant and the odds of 1000 selling a million in aggregate are practically a given. And that is a million sales that won't go to a trad-pubbed title.

That is an effect we are seeing, no?
Best sellers aren't selling as well as they used to.

Which makes me wonder just how well Grafton's latest are moving?
(Hey, *she* gratuitously brought up self-publishing into the interview! It apparently has been on her mind...)

Sadly, I smell fear.
Unnecesary fear, too.

Grafton says she has six unpublished early works from before she became a peddler of her cookie-cutter mystery series; with *her* name and brand behind them, she could self-publish them and find out how good they really are.
Let the "universe" tell her if the publishers were right or not to reject her.

Exactly. Let the readers be the gatekeeper. It's fine to have other gatekeeprs because not every reader wants the same reviewer, publisher or whatnot being the gatekeeper. There's room for more than one, just like there's room for more than one way to publish.

I bet some of her earlier work would be better than some of her later stuff...just my opinion. Her latest stuff lacks imagination and forward development. It's stale.