just because you have written a book does not make you an author

[cromag]

I write short stories so apparently, even though some of them were published on paper in commercial magazines, I don't count.

Bummer.

[bobstro]

So does being a "published author" imply anything more than self-published? The reason I ask is from a professional perspective. If I were to self-publish a technical title, would it be considered unprofessional or deceptive to describe myself as a published author in the field?

[latepaul]

The problem is not the word "author".

People are going to continue writing and putting their writing out there regardless of what you call them.

"That which we call a rose..."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The problem is not the word "author".

People are going to continue writing and putting their writing out there regardless of what you call them.

"That which we call a rose..."

Of course, but trying to name them something else serves to deprecate and marginalize the non-establishment players.

It's not a matter of definitions or semantics or quality but rather a powerplay by the establishment. Much like the complaints that Amazon doesn't marginalize indie titles into second class ghetto but rather lists them side by side with the tradpub titles. Since they can't make indie titles and authors vanish in a puff of smoke and brimstone their next best move is to deny their legitimacy. Hence the assertion that only tradpub writers are "real" authors.

If you want the "real author" badge, you must submit to the traditionalist establishment. And if you don't, why they'll... they'll... they'll call you bad names.
And hold their breath until they turn blue.

Pure pettiness, really.
But after a while, the continuing campaign gets annoying.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by moonshot

It's easy for any budding author to publish their writing to Amazon or Kobo in the form of an eBook.

But, how do we determine what is a 'proper book' by a professional author?

I asked a question about a recommendation for books in the first person and quite a few replies were from eBook authors suggesting I look at their books.

To me unless an author has had their book published in hardback they are not authors, they are people who have written a book.

Am I being fair?

You can define it any way you like for you. Nothing wrong with that. You can choose books by any criteria, including hardback published only.

But we authors get to define ourselves too. I'm an author. I will never have a hardback book and I'm not trying for one. I'm trying for enthusiastic readers in any shape, age, form or format. I don't consider a reader only a reader unless they finished college. I don't even care if you attended primary school. If you generally only read the back of cereal boxes, that's okay with me. You can still be a reader!!!

[QuantumIguana]

If writing a book doesn't make you an author, then it follows that there exist books with no author, and that the following conversation makes sense: "Who is the author of that book?" "There was no author." Clearly, this makes no sense, and thus writing a book makes you an author.

QED

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not a matter of definitions or semantics or quality but rather a powerplay by the establishment.

"The establishment" has nothing to do with it. This is a peculiar opinion put forward by one MR member, which nobody else has agreed with.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not a matter of definitions or semantics or quality but rather a powerplay by the establishment. Much like the complaints that Amazon doesn't marginalize indie titles into second class ghetto but rather lists them side by side with the tradpub titles. Since they can't make indie titles and authors vanish in a puff of smoke and brimstone their next best move is to deny their legitimacy. Hence the assertion that only tradpub writers are "real" authors.

If you want the "real author" badge, you must submit to the traditionalist establishment. And if you don't, why they'll... they'll... they'll call you bad names.
And hold their breath until they turn blue.

Pure pettiness, really.
But after a while, the continuing campaign gets annoying.

Aw, shoot. I missed the big power play. I missed the announcement from the traditional publishers that sought to delegitimize all nontraditional publications and those who perpetrate them. I missed all the fire and brimstone and denunciations. I missed all the fun.

[hidari]

Some people like "snobbish" literature, some people like Indie authors, some people like series, science-fiction, fantasy, romance etc... who are we to say...but as Harry T. has said many times before... the important point is that people are reading the books and that is good for all...authors and readers... The more you read.... hopefully....The more you learn...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"The establishment" has nothing to do with it. This is a peculiar opinion put forward by one MR member, which nobody else has agreed with.

You haven't seen this meme before?
Lucky you.
It's been making the rounds of the publishing media since last fall. All sorts of establishment eminences were dishing out variants of it.
It's not one guy; it's a campaign, apparently, that until now Mobileread was spared from.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You haven't seen this meme before?
Lucky you.
It's been making the rounds of the publishing media since last fall. All sorts of establishment eminences were dishing out variants of it.

It's a silly idea, regardless of who says it . Writing is writing. If you write, you're an author. Simple as that.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Aw, shoot. I missed the big power play. I missed the announcement from the traditional publishers that sought to delegitimize all nontraditional publications and those who perpetrate them. I missed all the fire and brimstone and denunciations. I missed all the fun.

Apparently you did.

Here's a chance to catch up:
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2...in-publishing/

The establishment has good reason astrouturf and FUD indie efforts because the danger to them is real, as pointed out recently by Harlequin:

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2014...-at-harlequin/

Sales and income at Harlequin were down again in the fourth quarter and for all of fiscal 2013. The company has seen revenues decline steadily for the past five years as both ebook sales and the rise of indie authors have affected Harlequin’s business.
.
.
.
As for 2014, Harlequin’s leadership expects sales to stabilize despite declining ebook prices and the rise of self-publishing. The average price of a best-selling ebook has been hovering around $6.00 for most of 2014. It currently sits at $6.57.

Indies may focus on commercial genre books, but the establishment makes a lot of its money from and their business model, much like broadcast TV, needs mass volumes of sales. Indie fragmentation of the market is not good for tradpub bottom lines.

As for Harlequin, well, they are reaping the result of their oh-so-clever self-dealing contracts and 4-6% royalties. Worse than their declining revenues is their documented decline in submissions.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by bobstro

So does being a "published author" imply anything more than self-published? The reason I ask is from a professional perspective. If I were to self-publish a technical title, would it be considered unprofessional or deceptive to describe myself as a published author in the field?

If calling yourself a published author can be done with credibility depends.

If you're writing fiction, you don't have to answer to anybody: it's your story, you can make up anything you want, and if you self-publish it and even one person buys it, you're a published author, IMHO.

On the other hand, if you write a (technical) manual or other scientific paper and publish it, I want some credentials. Are you Prof. Dr. Mr. Ph.D. or something? Has this work been verified by people who have already obtained credibility in the field? If not, then I can't take the work seriously yet, but as soon as it is verified, I will consider you a published author.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by moonshot

To me unless an author has had their book published in hardback they are not authors, they are people who have written a book.

So if I were to self publish and have it printed in Hardcover (it's not hard to do) I'd be a "real" author, but an author who writes for say Penguin (or another of the big five) who has only been printed in paperback isn't? Strange idea to me. Both are authors IMO, just at different levels.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If calling yourself a published author can be done with credibility depends.

If you're writing fiction, you don't have to answer to anybody: it's your story, you can make up anything you want, and if you self-publish it and even one person buys it, you're a published author, IMHO.

On the other hand, if you write a (technical) manual or other scientific paper and publish it, I want some credentials. Are you Prof. Dr. Mr. Ph.D. or something? Has this work been verified by people who have already obtained credibility in the field? If not, then I can't take the work seriously yet, but as soon as it is verified, I will consider you a published author.

Doesn't "published in the field" in the context I think we're talking about usually imply in a reputable scientific journal--not a non-fiction book? In other words--it's been checked or the experiments repeated by someone else? I could be wrong and it's probably just like fiction--different authors take liberty with the words and hope readers imply the highest possible standard.

Much like authors using the term 'best selling' because they have hit Amazon's 10th spot in Fiction/cozy mystery/underwater basket weaving or whathaveyou. I'm not sure it carries more weight in non-fiction because it's probably misconstrued there as well. We indies are no different that trad published or non-fiction authors. Many people period are going to try to use words to their advantage and it has nothing to do with whether we are "true" authors.

And honestly, I'm not trying to split hairs. If someone has published a non-fiction title, I consider them an author. That does not mean I believe everything in the book--the credentials are still required for that sort of thing, but it's fine if they said, 'I'm the author of such and such non-fiction title and an expert on the subject." The proof isn't in the fact they wrote a book; it's in whether they actually have experience/degrees/etc.

There are advantages to having labels and some of us depend on them more than others. If you are sorting books and only want to read hardback published authors, that's a particular criteria. Trying to define the word author...becomes kind of a personal thing at that point.