Debut author turned down $120,000, 3 books New York publishing deal to self-publish

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

English isn't their first language. Plus I read a lot, and have noticed the significant drop in quality.

I honestly can't say that I have. I suspect that most of us here at MR are avid readers.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/...nancial-advice

You do realize that article makes no reference to books, it's all about magazine and newspaper publishing, which have rather different copyediting and layout requirements and work on a much shorter timescale.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ken.Hagdal

You should have posted this as a disclaimer straight away. It adds so much perspective to your -purported- outlook and reasoning.

Seriously? Like all the authors and wannabe authors include disclaimers when they post their opinions?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/...nancial-advice

This article is not even about book publishing. Your claim was:

You'll need to avoid reading anything first published after 2002 then, because that's when the corporation publishers stopped using proofreaders and started farming copyediting out to companies based in India. And for anything older than that you will need to avoid the ebook version because it will be riddled with OCR errors.

You'll have to do better than an old article about an Indian company doing some work for newspapers and periodicals.

[Lemurion]

I don't believe we're going down this path again:

If you take 100, 1,000, or any other number of randomly selected indie books and compare them to the same number of randomly selected mainstream commercially published books, you will find that the commercially published books have fewer typos and grammatical errors. The writing will be better on a technical level because someone who knows what they are doing and does not know what the author meant to say, but only what they said has gone through and fixed errors.

It may not be perfect, but it will be far better than the majority of indie books, commercial publishers are justifiably held to a far higher standard in this area and it shows.

For those readers who really get annoyed at the errors that commonly slip into self-published works, commercially published books are a better choice because they're not pushing their buttons.

Also, if you get back to the original author's reasoning for why she made the decision she did, you'll see that money was not the main factor. Her primary concern was that the New York houses were too slow for her output. They wouldn't put out her books as fast as she wanted, and they wouldn't let her put out the other books she intended to write in the meantime.

Yes, she had a great first month, but the reason this appears to have been the right choice for her wasn't the money, but that she had certain specific goals she could meet through self-publishing, but not through the New York houses given the contracts they were offering.

She chose the option that best fit her goals.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't believe we're going down this path again:

If you take 100, 1,000, or any other number of randomly selected indie books and compare them to the same number of randomly selected mainstream commercially published books, you will find that the commercially published books have fewer typos and grammatical errors. The writing will be better on a technical level because someone who knows what they are doing and does not know what the author meant to say, but only what they said has gone through and fixed errors.

That may be true, but I don't read books at random. I let other people be the guinea pigs first. That eliminates a lot of the chaff. Word of mouth means more to me than does accepted by a gatekeeper. I don't read a huge number of self-published books, but I don't avoid them. If others wish to, that's fine, they can have whatever criteria they wish.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That may be true, but I don't read books at random. I let other people be the guinea pigs first. That eliminates a lot of the chaff. Word of mouth means more to me than does accepted by a gatekeeper. I don't read a huge number of self-published books, but I don't avoid them. If others wish to, that's fine, they can have whatever criteria they wish.

None of us read completely at random. I read a lot of both self-published and commercially published books, and even the good indies are more likely to have typos and grammatical errors than commercially published books.

It's the nature of the beast.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly can't say that I have. I suspect that most of us here at MR are avid readers.

Do I really need to start posting lists of mistakes in corporation published books again?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This article is not even about book publishing. Your claim was:



You'll have to do better than an old article about an Indian company doing some work for newspapers and periodicals.

Try this one then.

http://americaneditor.wordpress.com/...l-copyediting/

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Do I really need to start posting lists of mistakes in corporation published books again?

No, because it is both unnecessary and irrelevant. No one is arguing that every book from every commercial publisher is spotless and without blemish.

However, the presence of errors in commercially published works neither excuses nor eliminates the far greater number of errors found in self-published works. In religious terms, you're pointing at the speck while ignoring the beam.

[fjtorres]

People, look at this:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat...ear-dbw_b81862

Digital Book World interviewed almost 10,000 traditionally published authors,self-published authors, authors who are both traditionally published and self-published, along with aspiring authors.

The research revealed that only 10 percent of traditionally published authors made more than $20,000 a year and 5 percent of self-published authors made more than $20,000 a year.

That is right in line with the BPHs own reports that 80%-90% their books don't earn out their advance.

Now, Check the charts.
And remember that in the old days it was trad-Pub or nothing. No revenue unless you submitted to the publishers or pulled a (very rare) Grisham.

Then there is this. One of thousands of similar stories:
http://www.delilahmarvelle.blogspot....ensington.html

And this:
http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblin...ales-in-print/

And, especially, this:
http://www.indiesunlimited.com/2014/...-editing-myth/

Hang around author websites, instead of publisher-biased big media sites and you'll see why more and more authors are just saying no to traditional contracts. The "rewards" do not justify the risks.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Try this one then.

http://americaneditor.wordpress.com/...l-copyediting/

And where in this do you see anything to back up your assertion that traditional publishers have outsourced copyediting and proofreading to India for 10+ years?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

None of us read completely at random. I read a lot of both self-published and commercially published books, and even the good indies are more likely to have typos and grammatical errors than commercially published books.

It's the nature of the beast.

If we don't read at random, then the quality of a randomly selected self-published book is irrelevant.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And where in this do you see anything to back up your assertion that traditional publishers have outsourced copyediting and proofreading to India for 10+ years?

Failure of that link to state the name of affected books makes it impossible to know what to think.

The link back in #89 mentions one publication whose web site I do check out fairly often, the South China Morning Post. I like the paper. But, then, I fail to notice most proofreading mistakes.

As for the indie thing, the way I discover books I am not likely to come across them. Mainstream media like the New York Times Book Review rarely review them. The works of Pearl Buck, who essentially had her own family publisher, must have been an exception, but that's going back quite far. It's not, I think, that the Times was broader-minded back then, but that the number of published books today is so great that even they need to somehow whittle down the list for consideration.

I also discover books by looking at libraries for a subject I am interested in (lately, Taiwan and China). Again, you don't see indie.

Sometimes I will also look at recent library history acquisitions, mostly with the Overdrive advanced search. And then I google for a professional signed review before choosing to read. Again, no indie.

I do read some crime and spy fiction, and there must be good indie books in those genres. If they start winning the various prizes like the Edgar and Anthony, I might read some.

I'll also look at non-fiction awards like the Samuel Johnson and Pulitzer. No indie there either, unless I missed it.

As for Amazon customer reviews, I see they work for some, but I wouldn't personally give credence to anonymous reviews.

[Fbone]

I was more interested in where her books were sold.

Amazon (all countries) 89.7%
B&N 7.1
Kobo 1.2
All Romance 1.0
Apple (2 less weeks) 1.0