12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[latepaul]

I find the samples thing interesting because I don't really read samples. I'll admit there's subjective instinctive stuff as well as rational thought behind it. The rational stuff is the time/patience thing mainly.

Anyway, a while back - probably inspired by a similar MR thread at the time - I did this analysis of time taken to read samples on my blog. It's just a bit of fun and not remotely scientific but it was interesting.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I haven't read a mediocre book for a long time. All I can think of is people are just picking books at random without even looking at the cover, blurb or sample. Whoever the publisher is you're likely to be disappointed if that's how you choose what to read.

Self-publishing brought back all the type of books the corporations lost interest in decades ago. I don't see how that can be anything but good.

Also, self-publishers fix their mistakes when they are pointed out to them (with one famous exception, anyway). Corporation publishers never do that.

I meant that the filtering process with finding a really good books which includes checking reviews, checking award nominations and listening to friends filter out a lot of books including the ones that sampling would filter out. People proposing here that sampling is useful must end up reading mediocre books mostly.

I really hope that mistakes are fixed by making a new edition. I would really hate it if I cannot know which edition I have read or if friends I discus books with have read the same edition or not.

The bad thing with self publishing is that it seems to bypass the process were an author develops and gets better.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

I meant that the filtering process with finding a really good books which includes checking reviews, checking award nominations and listening to friends filter out a lot of books including the ones that sampling would filter out. People proposing here that sampling is useful must end up reading mediocre books mostly.

I really hope that mistakes are fixed by making a new edition. I would really hate it if I cannot know which edition I have read or if friends I discus books with have read the same edition or not.

The bad thing with self publishing is that it seems to bypass the process were an author develops and gets better.

Some authors are lucky and get to to work with editors who do help them develop--but largely, improvements are something we have to strive for on our own. That is not to say that I am not helped by my editors. However, I am the one who went to the trouble to seek out people who were critical of my work. I looked for people who had a special talent for storyline. People who go traditional either get lucky (their editor spends time with their project) or they don't. A few agents act in the capacity of editors and make suggestions, but by and large, most don't. Developmental editing is a talent like any other and not all editors are good at it. Some don't even know what it is.

There are a number of series I can think of that are appear to be just shoved out the door with little thought for plot. The characters are well-loved and the authors are left to do the best they can.

There are a number of series where the main character is never allowed to grow (say, pick a guy and get married. Janet Evanovich I'm looking at you) because for MARKETING reasons, they want the books to continue to be churned out and keep all the fans "happy" in that the main never picks a man.

Character growth can be the choice of the author or it can be manipulated by the author or the publisher. Same with plots. I know authors who have moved to write romance because the plots are easier to write. Authors make choices like this all the time and it doesn't matter whether they are trad or not.

Growth as an author isn't black and white. You aren't automatically going to get "Developmental" editing because you go traditional. In fact, it's less likely these days than in the past. It's a dying art.

I do storyline editing on the side. There are authors who are interested in paying for it, and there are a lot of authors who are not. Most authors--trad or not, don't think they need it. We as authors ASSUME that is our strength.

But storyline/developmental editing is Not a give in the industry and is becoming more and more rare.

It's there and when you recognize it as an author, you either find a way to get it or you don't. I HOPE that the last book I put out is better than the FIRST book. That was the goal with every book. And talent plays a part. No matter how much I write, I will reach a point where I can't get better. I think it's that way in sport, business and writing. Being exposed to different genres is a learning tool. Working with different editors is a learning tool. Traditional publishing is not the only way to learn or grow.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

I meant that the filtering process with finding a really good books which includes checking reviews, checking award nominations and listening to friends filter out a lot of books including the ones that sampling would filter out. People proposing here that sampling is useful must end up reading mediocre books mostly.

That doesn't follow. Sampling is just one more filter. No one is suggesting using sampling instead of looking at reviews and recommendations. Sampling an e-book is no different than opening the cover of a paper book before deciding whether or not to purchase. You've read the reviews, the recommendations, the cover looks like some effort went into it, and the blurb looks interesting. For the final filter, we can look at the book for ourselves. That might be opening the cover to read a little or looking at the sample.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

The bad thing with self publishing is that it seems to bypass the process were an author develops and gets better.

I don't see why. It's not as if the corporations are sending their writers to writer school. People learn on their own, and get better the more they write. The only difference I can see is people are putting their early work out there instead of hiding or destroying it. That will be good for future historians.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by tompe

I meant that the filtering process with finding a really good books which includes checking reviews, checking award nominations and listening to friends filter out a lot of books including the ones that sampling would filter out. People proposing here that sampling is useful must end up reading mediocre books mostly.

I really hope that mistakes are fixed by making a new edition. I would really hate it if I cannot know which edition I have read or if friends I discus books with have read the same edition or not.

The bad thing with self publishing is that it seems to bypass the process were an author develops and gets better.

I think that an author who accepts feedback from fans will get better. Well, if they pick and choose. So if fans are saying "we love the character development but think that the world building is a little thin" that could be helpful. Or "The story is great but there are a fair number of spelling mistakes, look out for...) could help.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I think that an author who accepts feedback from fans will get better. Well, if they pick and choose. So if fans are saying "we love the character development but think that the world building is a little thin" that could be helpful. Or "The story is great but there are a fair number of spelling mistakes, look out for...) could help.

Certainly true, but it isn't the fan's job. And sometimes fan comments can be more confusing than helpful. I've had fan mail telling me that Tracking Magic should be taken down as it doesn't reflect my real writing talent. I've also had fan mail saying the stories are funny and cute and "just what I needed."



Catch an Honest Thief has a review that mentions typos. I was horrified. I immediately had two editors go through it. Two typos were found (and neither one found a third that a reader sent me over a year later). From the review I had these visions of typos on every other page. I'm happy to fix them, but yikes. A comment like that can cause a heart attack.

Reviews and fan mail can be...interesting. I'm always happy to get any kind of feedback, but you do have to take it with a grain of salt and have thick skin. The woman who told me Tracking Magic should be removed was a fairly big and vocal fan...it's a disappointment to disappoint such a fan, but not every work is going to be a great read for every person.

As a writer, there's a time to take feedback and a time to close your eyes and jump.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I do storyline editing on the side. There are authors who are interested in paying for it, and there are a lot of authors who are not. Most authors--trad or not, don't think they need it. We as authors ASSUME that is our strength.

My point is that self publishing lets the authors that do not think they need it publish worse work then they could publish.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That doesn't follow. Sampling is just one more filter. No one is suggesting using sampling instead of looking at reviews and recommendations. Sampling an e-book is no different than opening the cover of a paper book before deciding whether or not to purchase. You've read the reviews, the recommendations, the cover looks like some effort went into it, and the blurb looks interesting. For the final filter, we can look at the book for ourselves. That might be opening the cover to read a little or looking at the sample.

It follows since if you can detect in a paragraph that the book is not worth reading then the reviewers or friends would have told me so.

I am of the opinion that you have to read maybe 70-100 pages before being able to decide if the book is really good or just mediocre. And sometimes you have to read the whole book since a bad ending can make an otherwise very good book be a mediocre book.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't see why. It's not as if the corporations are sending their writers to writer school. People learn on their own, and get better the more they write. The only difference I can see is people are putting their early work out there instead of hiding or destroying it. That will be good for future historians.

Because they are not forced to listen and most people have to high opinion of their own skills.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by tompe

Because they are not forced to listen and most people have to high opinion of their own skills.

I get what you're saying, but there are traditionally published authors that are the same way.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

It follows since if you can detect in a paragraph that the book is not worth reading then the reviewers or friends would have told me so.

I am of the opinion that you have to read maybe 70-100 pages before being able to decide if the book is really good or just mediocre. And sometimes you have to read the whole book since a bad ending can make an otherwise very good book be a mediocre book.

The reviewers could be wrong, or their tastes might not be the same as yours. Samples provide additional information about the book for people to make purchasing decisions. Reviews and recommendations can tell you if you *might* like something, they can tell you whether it is worth the next step, which is reading the sample. Reading samples does not imply mediocrity.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

It follows since if you can detect in a paragraph that the book is not worth reading then the reviewers or friends would have told me so.

That only applies if tastes are universal and absolute.
Sampling is about testing a book for suitability, to see how it matches with *your* tastes and expectations. Friends and reviewers can only tell you what *they* think.

Sampling is testing to see what *you* think.

Relying on others only gets you part of the way to a good/fun read. Sooner or later you have to read and pass judgment yourself. It can be before or after paying, before or after reading the first paragraph; that is strictly up to you.

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... I guess my standards are more subjective. When I am going through a large selection of books, online, at a bookstore, at the library, whatever, I am trying to find a book that I am sufficiently interested in, to buy it. I am not very much interested in rating the books by some measure of their "Quality", just if the book might be fun to read or provide useful information. Imperfection is not an issue. Relative measures like "Mediocrity" effect me, not at all. I certainly would like it if the majority of "mediocre" ebooks were ones that I enjoy. It must be very limiting, if the only books you want to read are the few (by definition) "Extraordinary" books that you can find.

I wonder if, for some of you, your motto might be: "Life is too short to ENJOY a mediocre book!"

Luck;
Ken

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tompe

My point is that self publishing lets the authors that do not think they need it publish worse work then they could publish.

Balance that against all the books we would never see if we had to rely on corporations choosing them for us. And an editor in some sweat-shop in India whose first language isn't English isn't going to be much better than no editor at all.