The Value of Time

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I read what interests me. Period. The value of my time and the price of admission rarely factor into my decision in that regard.

Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

So...do I read a "Jack Noble" book for $3.99 or a "Mitch Rapp" book (that the Jack Noble book compares itself too) for $8.99?

Reading what you've written, I say read the Mitch Rapp books until you've read them all or are fed up with Mitch Rapp.

The Jack Noble books will be there when you've read all the Rapp that are currently available and are eagerly awaiting the next installment.

I buy indies here and there, but I've noticed most of the 'indies' I buy are reprints of books that were published by the Big 5 at one point in time and have fallen out of print.

There's something to be said for the editing and polish of a big publisher. Some indies do hire professional editors, etc. But there's not an easy way to tell who has and who hasn't.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by theducks

Annoying: Rampant 'Name Dropping (be it brand or personages) unless it is really needed to move the story forward.

That's funny, because including brand names is one of the things I heard praised about early Stephen King writing. It helps set his outlandish stories more concretely in the 'real world'.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That's funny, because including brand names is one of the things I heard praised about early Stephen King writing. It helps set his outlandish stories more concretely in the 'real world'.

I think the annoying part comes from it being rampant (overdone) and/or clearly product placement.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Reading what you've written, I say read the Mitch Rapp books until you've read them all or are fed up with Mitch Rapp.

The Jack Noble books will be there when you've read all the Rapp that are currently available and are eagerly awaiting the next installment.

I buy indies here and there, but I've noticed most of the 'indies' I buy are reprints of books that were published by the Big 5 at one point in time and have fallen out of print.

There's something to be said for the editing and polish of a big publisher. Some indies do hire professional editors, etc. But there's not an easy way to tell who has and who hasn't.

Yep. And it’s not just the typos and grammar. It’s the depth of the story telling. The extra details, the texture, the character development.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by theducks

Technology flaws (spark plugs on a Diesel).

There is one exception to this. Diesel powered tanks usually have a small gas powered engine as "starter motor" for the big one ...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Yep. And it’s not just the typos and grammar. It’s the depth of the story telling. The extra details, the texture, the character development.

That's all part of what a good editor provides. Ever read the story of how To Kill A Mockingbird was written? It sounded like the book was really co-written by Lee Harper and her editor. That's a bit of an extreme example.

For me, an author is either a good story teller or he isn't. That's the talent part. What makes a great author is when the author is a good story teller and is willing to take feedback, either from the editor or from a reading group, to polish the work.

Many indies suffer from the same issue that many famous authors do after they become famous, i.e. they don't have to listen to their editor, or editors focus on grammar/spelling/continuity issues and stop making readability suggestions.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I read what interests me. Period. The value of my time and the price of admission rarely factor into my decision in that regard.

I agree with the first. But the value of my time does matter to me as well my patience, which also is limited. Not only do I want to maximize my actual reading time by playing the odds in terms of likely sources and avoiding the ocean of carp that is self-pubbed, I also have a kindly regard for my mental and emotional health, which is not helped by reading awful stuff, even just to sample it.

Originally Posted by leebase

Yep. And it’s not just the typos and grammar. It’s the depth of the story telling. The extra details, the texture, the character development.

Indies strike me as tending to be long on conversation and short on narrative. It's as if the author heard the voices in his head and just transcribed them, like a court reporter.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

...

Indies strike me as tending to be long on conversation and short on narrative. It's as if the author heard the voices in his head and just transcribed them, like a court reporter.

I've noticed that a number of indies are from the "No s**t, there I was..." school of story telling that is so popular when shooting the breeze with your buddies in a bar. Basically, they want to jump to the "good stuff" without build up or setting the stage. Zombie Apocalypse books are well known for this sort of style.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with the first. But the value of my time does matter to me as well my patience, which also is limited. Not only do I want to maximize my actual reading time by playing the odds in terms of likely sources and avoiding the ocean of carp that is self-pubbed, I also have a kindly regard for my mental and emotional health, which is not helped by reading awful stuff, even just to sample it.

Maybe I should have clarified. My personal vetting process for finding "what interests me" rarely results in something terrible enough for me to have considered my time wasted. I very rarely buy books on whim--famous author or no-name self-pubber.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That's funny, because including brand names is one of the things I heard praised about early Stephen King writing. It helps set his outlandish stories more concretely in the 'real world'.

The horror isn't what's under the bed, but what's in it (figuratively 'speaking'). That's the real horror that writers like Stephen King and other serious writers wish to explore, in my opinion.

When the stories are 'outlandish' (a finger coming out of the sink), the real horror is the exploration of the consequences of that action and how it impacts upon the characters' lives (and, consequently, upon our own lives).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

__________________
I SURVIVED!
A stroke is not always a death sentence, but it is a life-changing event. Today (April 24th) I celebrate my one-year survival since having an ischemic stroke. The first 3 weeks I had to use a walker. The first few months I couldn’t even get my clothes on by myself. I had to use my right hand to eat. Fortunately, I can now control the left side of my body. Four months after my stroke, I was able to walk completely without assistance and now I’m walking again and able to drive.

Congratulations! For some reason, I hadn't seen/noticed that blurb before. I enjoy reading your posts, but I didn't know that about you.

(I will say that in some parts of the United States, having a stroke doesn't seem to keep people from driving. I suspect that being dead wouldn't keep some people from driving)

[Dr. Drib]

^ Thank you for the kind words.

Zombies driving golf-carts...I sense a story taking shape.

I have a finished poem: "Thirteen Ways of Looking at Horror Tropes". Here's number 8:

VIII.
Everyone in town was dead,
except for the zombies
who ambled down High Street
looking for brains,
even though most of them owned
late model cars and
had valid driver’s licenses.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

The horror isn't what's under the bed, but what's in it (figuratively 'speaking'). That's the real horror that writers like Stephen King and other serious writers wish to explore, in my opinion.

When the stories are 'outlandish' (a finger coming out of the sink), the real horror is the exploration of the consequences of that action and how it impacts upon the characters' lives (and, consequently, upon our own lives).

Yes, yes. What you say is true. That's why Bentley Little is a better author than Richard Laymon (to me).

But I was talking about what I remember reading in reviews, not what I personally thought.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Yes, yes. What you say is true. That's why Bentley Little is a better author than Richard Laymon (to me).

But I was talking about what I remember reading in reviews, not what I personally thought.

Oh, I agree totally. Bentley Little is one of my favorite writers in the Horror genre. He's a wonderful writer.

Laymon is fun, but he's like fast-food: delicious, but not recommended for everyday consumption.