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

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But just because *they* are scared doesn't mean *we, the readers* have to be. Because the thing is, the way things are going, the new gatekeepers are *us*.

We get to choose what is good.

The problems is, I'd rather not. With traditional publishers, probably three out of each four books I buy satisfy my criteria for being entertaining. Five out of every six self published books I read are far below those criteria. I rather increase my chances that a book I read is good and thus tend to buy from established publishers.

The gatekeepers really wish we would let them choose for us.
Me, I'd rather choose for myself; I don't mind wading ankle deep through the slush pile.

I abhor it, I rather spend my time reading something fun

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Soldim

The problems is, I'd rather not. With traditional publishers, probably three out of each four books I buy satisfy my criteria for being entertaining. Five out of every six self published books I read are far below those criteria. I rather increase my chances that a book I read is good and thus tend to buy from established publishers.



I abhor it, I rather spend my time reading something fun

But, isn't it great to have the ability to *choose* for yourself?

It's like choosing a car's color.
The Model T came "in any color you like as long as it's black".
That was then.
Now, people who like canary yellow or eyeball-searing green can get cars in those colors.
And those that like black *still* can.

Those that like having the trad-pub seal of approval on their reads can *still* chose those books. Or even *only* those books.
We aren't (yet) at the point where free-range authors are to be preferred to the gate-kept reservation authors.

It is just about getting to choose for yourself and not decrying it when others choose otherwise.

Me, I like the monochome palette for cars; first new car white, second black, current silver. But I don't (visibly) cringe at the yellow VWs and green Toyotas I run into.
Common courtesy.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Except their are of course self-published authors, such as Courtney Milan, that are forking out the money for editing and trying to put as good a product as she did when she was published by a traditional publisher.

But that will probably not work in most cases since the author is not forced to follow the advice.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But, isn't it great to have the ability to *choose* for yourself?

Not if the cost is a big reduction in the number of really good books.

And if the choice procedure force you to waste a lot of time then it is not a good thing either.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not if the cost is a big reduction in the number of really good books.

And if the choice procedure force you to waste a lot of time then it is not a good thing either.

I just haven't seen this big reduction of which you speak. Can you give me an example? Have the number of books published by the big publishing houses gone down? Or have those numbers stayed the same, and we just have more choice now, because we don't have to rely ONLY on the big houses?

Shari

Edited to add--If your argument is based on something that might possibly happen in the future, then you win by default. I'm not psychic. I can't predict what may or may not happen 5 years from now. If you have that wondrous psychic ability, then I bow down to you, and wish to borrow some money from you, because you obviously must be very rich, to be able to see the future in that way.

S

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that will probably not work in most cases since the author is not forced to follow the advice.

And those that don't will be disappointed by the market response. So what?
Nobody is forced to buy anything.
Readers aren't exactly stupid, they *can* tell crap a mile away.

Like, covers like *these* are probably a *tiny* hint of what's inside:
http://lousybookcovers.tumblr.com/

Or maybe blurbs like these:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...52&postcount=1

People who don't do their due dilligence on the inside of the book rarely do very well with the outside. "Lazy is as lazy does," as Mr Gump would say.

I understand that going from a lifetime of limited guided choices to a market of abundance can be literally stunning (there are stories of cuban baseball players, sudden millionaires, literally freezing the first time their cultural coaches take them to a supermarket; dozens of brands! all unknown! Which to choose? Anybody would brain cramp.) but people are adaptable.

And those that aren't or choose not to adapt are in no way harmed or diminished by the expanded choice. But those willing to adapt are enriched; it's a win/no-lose proposition as long as nobody seeks to limit others' choices.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally agree. Phonetic renderings of accents can be VERY tedious if carried to extremes.

If you want tough to read, try Feersum Endjinn by Iain M Banks.
One of the characters 'thinks' entirely phonetically. (Starts at chapter 4)

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Would Authors be open to the idea of smaller advances if there is an increase in royualties? Honestly, I have a feeling that that is the only way that Publishing as it exists today is going to continue.

Everything is negotiable. One of the problems, though, is that agents want as much upfront as possible. They don't know what will happen tomorrow. They know a series can get dropped regardless. Books can be orphaned. Marketing support, even when in the contract, rarely appears.

PERSONALLY, I'd probably opt for higher royalties. But in a lot of cases, the author doesn't do the negotiating. Certain agents already have clauses that they have "negotiated" ahead of time--seriously. They already expect to get 1. 2. and 3. The publisher knows the agent and they have a template for that agent. So while all of it is up for grabs, some of it depends on the agent.

And before a book is published no one knows how well it will sell. So it's a matter of who takes on the most risk--the publisher or the author.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

I just haven't seen this big reduction of which you speak. Can you give me an example? Have the number of books published by the big publishing houses gone down? Or have those numbers stayed the same, and we just have more choice now, because we don't have to rely ONLY on the big houses?

Shari

So far, the BPHs are putting out *more* titles than ever.
And if the quality is going down... well, they *are* choosing what to put out there, right?

The point of being gatekeepers is to only put out what you believe in.

Now, long term, the odds are good that the BPHs will be putting out more and more crap, simply because that is a trend that started long *before* indie publishing became mainstream. (The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since at least roman times. There is a summerian tablet out there, though... )

Also, because the smarter, more business-focused authors will know *not* to give away 87% of their future revenue in exchange for a few thousand dollars of present day services. Predatory contracts are not good long term business strategies in *any* business.

Book publishing *is* becoming Darwinian... for authors.
Savvy ones will prosper, the unwary... will go to Author Solutions.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Soldim

The problems is, I'd rather not. With traditional publishers, probably three out of each four books I buy satisfy my criteria for being entertaining. Five out of every six self published books I read are far below those criteria. I rather increase my chances that a book I read is good and thus tend to buy from established publishers.

You get the best of both worlds. The trad pubs aren't gone. So just having self-published around doesn't hurt your choices!

[hidari]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If you want tough to read, try Feersum Endjinn by Iain M Banks.
One of the characters 'thinks' entirely phonetically. (Starts at chapter 4)

I think Harry needs to drink a bottle of whiskey first... WANT pain..Try Gravity's Rainbow, War and Peace, or try watching... The Wall, Akira Kurusawa's Dreams, Brazil and Naked Lunch back to back on LSD.... that is painful...fun but painful...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And before a book is published no one knows how well it will sell. So it's a matter of who takes on the most risk--the publisher or the author.

Exactly.
It's all about risk and reward.

Writers that believe in their work *and* are willing to play the long game are more likely to go indie or for the higher royalty/minimal advance contract (if they can find one).

Writers that are willing to effectively sell their work for a lump sum upfront (for whatever reason) prefer the higher advances and let the publisher run all the risk and get whatever reward the market accords.

There is room for both.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But, isn't it great to have the ability to *choose* for yourself?

It's like choosing a car's color.
The Model T came "in any color you like as long as it's black".
That was then.
Now, people who like canary yellow or eyeball-searing green can get cars in those colors.
And those that like black *still* can.

Those that like having the trad-pub seal of approval on their reads can *still* chose those books. Or even *only* those books.
We aren't (yet) at the point where free-range authors are to be preferred to the gate-kept reservation authors.

It is just about getting to choose for yourself and not decrying it when others choose otherwise.

Me, I like the monochome palette for cars; first new car white, second black, current silver. But I don't (visibly) cringe at the yellow VWs and green Toyotas I run into.
Common courtesy.

Let's say the cars with the muted colors are all rock-solid vehicles you know you can rely on--they've been around a long time, they get the job done. But the rainbow-colored cars are cheaply made and flashy, and on some of them, the doors might fall off or the brakes might fail.

Is the risk worth it?

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Everything is negotiable. One of the problems, though, is that agents want as much upfront as possible. They don't know what will happen tomorrow. They know a series can get dropped regardless. Books can be orphaned. Marketing support, even when in the contract, rarely appears.

PERSONALLY, I'd probably opt for higher royalties. But in a lot of cases, the author doesn't do the negotiating. Certain agents already have clauses that they have "negotiated" ahead of time--seriously. They already expect to get 1. 2. and 3. The publisher knows the agent and they have a template for that agent. So while all of it is up for grabs, some of it depends on the agent.

And before a book is published no one knows how well it will sell. So it's a matter of who takes on the most risk--the publisher or the author.

If Publishers are cutting authors because they are not hitting targets, as an author I think I would prefer the option of higher royalties and less of anadvance so that the next book is published as opposed to no advance and no royalties. I would think that agents would prefer that they make something over a period of time then make nothing by insisting on a higher advance payment.

[speakingtohe]

@BearMountainBooks and ftjorres
Thanks for the interesting replies.

I won't quote them as they are long and I don't disagree with your points.

As I said I don't like the term gatekeepers, but maybe I have read too many fantasy books and keep picturing Cerberus in my mind when I hear it.

I think it is great that people wade through the slushpile and discover hidden gems. It is not for me at this point.

Number one reason is that there re far too many books I want to read by authors I am enamoured of already.

Number two is that I get most of my reading from the library and there are many many books to chose from. I have bought thousands of books in my life, but I started to move from place to place frequently at the advanced age of 50 and had to get rid of a humongous amount of books and the places I lived had no book stores of any kind usually.

Libraries as you know are secondary gatekeepers of a sort (pardon me for using the term)

A long story, but I have no shortage of books to read, and no desire to wade through the slushpile. I flailed around at it a bit and didn't like it. Those that do and post reviews, are no doubt providing a service of a kind, but what will it evolve into? We have Goodreads, literature map etc. but I have found the majority of strong links/recommendations are to traditionally published authors.

My way of choosing books has always been to start with authors I know I will like, then pick out a book or two by unfamiliar names in genres I like. I will give anything a try if reading material is short, even books I am fairly sure I will dislike, nut with the wide choice available at present I am too spoiled to expend the mental energy.

But for those that enjoy the process of discovering those hidden gems, well these are probably the greatest of times too.

Helen