Author Michael A. Stackpole says; "Books are Magazines"

[OneandonlyDoc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think that's a fantastic idea. As long as those little consortiums don't eventually grow into a beast that gets to decide which indie authors are "in" and which are "out."

*laughs* More like a first line of defense against the "deluge of crap," really. You wouldn't attach your work to someone else's book if you wouldn't read it yourself. That kind of thing.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But my point is that nothing has ever changed (nor will it ever) in this regard: established authors will always sell more because they're already known—regardless of the medium. All others are struggling to become known, so they can join those ranks.

Yes, his posts are geared toward established authors embracing the idea of self-publishing, but that doesn't change the plight of the unknown indie author in any way.

I guess I just don't get your point. Yes, the new climate will benefit established authors more than it will indie authors... but the old climate did too.

My point is that the easiest path to indie success goes through commercial publication. Many indie authors often talk about how outdated and backward looking the commercial publishing industry is - often following it with why they don't think anyone should go that route - yet it's a very good way to build indie success.

Lots of things have changed, lots of things are changing, but for now and at least the immediate future, commercial publication is the best way for an author to build their name and brand identity.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

My point is that the easiest path to indie success goes through commercial publication...

Sure... if you can get a commercial publisher to give you the time of day. But what we've seen is that most indies won't get touched by a commercial publisher until after they've demonstrated hefty ebook or vanity sales, or developed viral-level buzz. The other 99+% of indies are effectively shut out of that opportunity.

[elizilla]

There are so many books looking for audience, that almost all of them will always be shut out. There simply isn't enough audience. The question is, how do we decide which ones to shut out? Frankly as a reader, I don't want to do that myself. I only have time to read one or two books per week, and I'd rather skip the lousy ones without having to figure out which ones are lousy by reading them myself.

Publishers perform that weeding-out process rather better than me choosing based on titles or covers or synopsis or authors screaming "pick me pick me!". The author earns their percentage of what I pay for the book, by writing it. The publisher earns their percentage by shielding me from the slushpile. But the publishers are far from perfect, and are they doing their job well enough to justify the portion they get? Maybe not.

The problem with the big publishers and the indies both, is that there are always cheat codes, ways to work the system and squeeze things through even if they are terrible. The cheat codes for the big publishers are things like name recognition, personal connections, in-groups, and large amounts of money. The cheat codes for indies are things like authorial self-delusion, sockpuppets, and small amounts of money. The indie's cheat codes are available to anyone, and therefore more authors using them, hence way more volume. As a reader, I want to avoid books that are getting in front of my eyeballs due to someone cheating.

There are enough terrible books that cheated their way past the obstacles, now taking up space on the center stage, that there ought to be more room for good ones. But how do we get these cheaters off the stage and the good books onto the stage?