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

[Katsunami]

It's quite logical, really.

I like to play fantasy role-playing games, mostly because the better ones have a good story, similar to the fantasy that I often read. It's a bit like playing a novel. Planescape: Torment carries this to the extreme. That game's a cult classic. People who don't like to read, will quit Torment in like.... 10 minutes. Sometimes, you don't do anything for 15 minutes but read dialogue and select responses; those responses will advance and change the story and the options you have in the future. In the end, they'll ultimately determine the ending of the game and what will become of your character.

I also like older and some newer city builders and old adventure games.

However, I don't like action-orentied MMORPG's (Massive Multiplayer Online RPG's), RPG's set in an apocalyptic setting, Sci-Fi RPG's, 3D shooters, and Real Time Strategy games. The genre, or the way those games are played just doesn't appeal to me.

Therefore, I consider all of those games crap.

I'm sure that there are many people that consider one or more of the games I label as crap to be a gem of the industry, in the same way I consider Planescape: Torment the best RPG ever created, with regard to story and character depth.

I don't like running around maps and blowing stuff up, putting headshots into other players, and point-and-twitch reaction-type gameplay; other people don't like to read dialog, make decisions based on that, and when/if there's combat, pause the game and issue commands to 6 different characters (repeatedly).

Both sides will think that the other side's games are crap, and that's fine. Room enough for everyone.

[Catlady]

I'm curious--are there breakdowns for the kind of material that is being self- or indie-published? Nonfiction, erotica/porn, science fiction/fantasy, horror, mystery/thriller, romance, kidlit, etc.?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm curious--are there breakdowns for the kind of material that is being self- or indie-published? Nonfiction, erotica/porn, science fiction/fantasy, horror, mystery/thriller, romance, kidlit, etc.?

Children's books weren't done much at all until the Kindle Fire (with color and ability to more easily size and upload pictures). Not only that, it's an expensive device to hand to a child...Jeffry Hepple started doing some children's books after it became more viable. He does computer rendered illustrations, which keeps costs down, but there are some who are scanning in the illustrations or who do more "original" computer graphics for books. I think Hepple's best work is "Camden and the Beanstalk" as far as a cute take on the title of as similar name. Some of his others are simple little dance/tales that will keep a kid occupied but they aren't deep stories. He's redone most of the "classics" for his grandkids and uploaded a few (Three little Pigs, etc.)

I can't tell you much about erotica porn, but I know that once it took off, it really took off as far as people self-publishing. You can't go on Kindleboards now without some porn author or other being a part of the discussion and because of the sig lines it's pretty obvious they write porn. (The covers show in the sig line if they chose).

When I used to be on Kindleboards, I didn't see that sort of thing for the first year I was on. Now it's very prevalent. I found the board about 5 years ago. From what I have seen of sales stats for porn writers, they seem happy with sales. One author I can think of writes mysteries and also porn. He said the porn way outsells the mysteries and he wishes he could just write the mysteries, but that's not the way it has worked for him. Several of the authors apparently use two or more names as well -- one for the porn and the other name for the rest.

There are lots of mysteries/cozies/chick-lit/thrillers/romance and sci/fi and these are the most popular categories for fiction that I've seen (reported as far as sales--lit doesn't seem as common or popular for being self-published or for selling all that well). I'd say fiction largely outweighs non-fiction from the questions I see from those who do write non-fiction. The earlier writers doing non-fiction were often bringing back updated books that were out-of-print. Some of them had trouble selling because they wanted to price at 9.99 under the assumption their books were still very inexpensive by comparison to print. (A lot of non-fiction is priced upwards of 35 in the US). There wasn't a large selection of non-fiction 5 years ago, but it's grown. What I saw in non-fiction 5 years ago was largely memoirs--very popular category for self-published writers. I think the self-help and cookbooks and the like has grown enormously in the last two years. I'm seeing more books on soap making, gardening and that sort of thing, but often the complaint is that they are short. I think these will become a more viable self-pub area now that pictures can be more easily rendered. It's tough to sell a recipe book without any kind of picture because people want and expect that.

If you pay attention to ad sites, there is at least one who charges more for certain kinds of ads (check bookbub under ads or sponsors--there's a long list of what they charge. If I recall their most popular categories are mysteries.) However, some blogs, DailyCheapReads, carry a lot more cozy and romance. When that blog started a bookclub, the first book chosen by vote was a cozy mystery. Next up was mystery. DailyCheapReads doesn't carry a lot of self-pub'd but from what I've seen, when it is carried it's usually romance or mystery. I don't know if this is a function of what is available or what sells.

I'd say that all of those main fiction categories have a healthy number of writers participating. Romance has many outlets including some of the main publishers "lending" their name to what is essentially self-publishing (Avon comes to mind. I think there are others that have "imprints" that are essentially self-publishing.) I don't think romance readers are any more "likely" to buy self-published than anyone else, but I do think there are more of that genre published in this category than many others.

Kindleboards people could probably answer that question in a poll type of thing in a hurry.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

It's quite logical, really.

I like to play fantasy role-playing games, mostly because the better ones have a good story, similar to the fantasy that I often read. It's a bit like playing a novel. Planescape: Torment carries this to the extreme. That game's a cult classic. People who don't like to read, will quit Torment in like.... 10 minutes. Sometimes, you don't do anything for 15 minutes but read dialogue and select responses; those responses will advance and change the story and the options you have in the future. In the end, they'll ultimately determine the ending of the game and what will become of your character.

I also like older and some newer city builders and old adventure games.

However, I don't like action-orentied MMORPG's (Massive Multiplayer Online RPG's), RPG's set in an apocalyptic setting, Sci-Fi RPG's, 3D shooters, and Real Time Strategy games. The genre, or the way those games are played just doesn't appeal to me.

Therefore, I consider all of those games crap.

I'm sure that there are many people that consider one or more of the games I label as crap to be a gem of the industry, in the same way I consider Planescape: Torment the best RPG ever created, with regard to story and character depth.

I don't like running around maps and blowing stuff up, putting headshots into other players, and point-and-twitch reaction-type gameplay; other people don't like to read dialog, make decisions based on that, and when/if there's combat, pause the game and issue commands to 6 different characters (repeatedly).

Both sides will think that the other side's games are crap, and that's fine. Room enough for everyone.

Have you considered the Thief series of games? Some of the fan missions extend the story like nature of the game, mostly with Thief 2. Some play the game at its hardest where you have to complete the mission without killing anyone or being detected. As the name implies, you sneak around the maps and guarded mansions trying to acquire the objects needed for the mission. The first time a guard almost catches you can be quite an experience.

Luck;
Ken

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Children's books weren't done much at all until the Kindle Fire (with color and ability to more easily size and upload pictures). Not only that, it's an expensive device to hand to a child...Jeffry Hepple started doing some children's books after it became more viable. He does computer rendered illustrations, which keeps costs down, but there are some who are scanning in the illustrations or who do more "original" computer graphics for books. I think Hepple's best work is "Camden and the Beanstalk" as far as a cute take on the title of as similar name. Some of his others are simple little dance/tales that will keep a kid occupied but they aren't deep stories. He's redone most of the "classics" for his grandkids and uploaded a few (Three little Pigs, etc.)

I was thinking more of chapter books for older kids and the young adult market, rather than books that rely heavily on illustrations.

I can't tell you much about erotica porn, but I know that once it took off, it really took off as far as people self-publishing. You can't go on Kindleboards now without some porn author or other being a part of the discussion and because of the sig lines it's pretty obvious they write porn. (The covers show in the sig line if they chose).

OK, this has been my impression--that an awful lot of the self-published material is porn. And that it's the kind of material that would almost never make it to print with a traditional publisher. In addition, neither the authors nor the readers of this material care much about literary quality.

I have nothing to back this up--it's only my impression from seeing covers and blurbs.

When I used to be on Kindleboards, I didn't see that sort of thing for the first year I was on. Now it's very prevalent. I found the board about 5 years ago. From what I have seen of sales stats for porn writers, they seem happy with sales. One author I can think of writes mysteries and also porn. He said the porn way outsells the mysteries and he wishes he could just write the mysteries, but that's not the way it has worked for him. Several of the authors apparently use two or more names as well -- one for the porn and the other name for the rest.

There are lots of mysteries/cozies/chick-lit/thrillers/romance and sci/fi and these are the most popular categories for fiction that I've seen (reported as far as sales--lit doesn't seem as common or popular for being self-published or for selling all that well).

What you're saying is again backing my my impressions.

I'd say fiction largely outweighs non-fiction from the questions I see from those who do write non-fiction. The earlier writers doing non-fiction were often bringing back updated books that were out-of-print. Some of them had trouble selling because they wanted to price at 9.99 under the assumption their books were still very inexpensive by comparison to print. (A lot of non-fiction is priced upwards of 35 in the US). There wasn't a large selection of non-fiction 5 years ago, but it's grown. What I saw in non-fiction 5 years ago was largely memoirs--very popular category for self-published writers. I think the self-help and cookbooks and the like has grown enormously in the last two years. I'm seeing more books on soap making, gardening and that sort of thing, but often the complaint is that they are short. I think these will become a more viable self-pub area now that pictures can be more easily rendered. It's tough to sell a recipe book without any kind of picture because people want and expect that.

I forgot about memoirs.

I would think other nonfiction categories would be a hard sell, because the authors would need some kind of credentials; otherwise why would a reader trust their advice or pronouncements or even recipes?

Even though it's technically self-publishing, an established author reissuing his or her backlist seems like a whole 'nother ball game.

I'd say that all of those main fiction categories have a healthy number of writers participating. Romance has many outlets including some of the main publishers "lending" their name to what is essentially self-publishing (Avon comes to mind. I think there are others that have "imprints" that are essentially self-publishing.) I don't think romance readers are any more "likely" to buy self-published than anyone else, but I do think there are more of that genre published in this category than many others.

Kindleboards people could probably answer that question in a poll type of thing in a hurry.

Are you talking about Avon's Impulse line? As far as I know, that line is for e-books only, but I would not call it self-publishing.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I was thinking more of chapter books for older kids and the young adult market, rather than books that rely heavily on illustrations.

The YA market has a fairly large self-publishing crowd. I'd say even the middle grade (8 to YA) has quite a bit of self-publishing going on. One of the first books I read when I got into self-publishing was a middle grade book and that was at least 5 years ago. I think children's and middle grade are popular genres to write. Lots of moms and dads out there write a book or two for their own kids. Many of them made their way into the self-pub market. It's a very tight market in trad publishing.

OK, this has been my impression--that an awful lot of the self-published material is porn. And that it's the kind of material that would almost never make it to print with a traditional publisher. In addition, neither the authors nor the readers of this material care much about literary quality.

I have nothing to back this up--it's only my impression from seeing covers and blurbs.

There was always an "underground" market and "publishing" for this sort of thing from what I understand--Lots of online places where it was already for sale. What Amazon and smashwords did was bring it out of those places and put it for sale in the light of day. Smashwords had a very hefty amount of it right from the get-go. This "data" is based on conversations I've seen on forums. A LOT of material in this genre was already written and self-published, including the self-publishing print areas. Once Kindle and KDP platform came along, it hit all at once. So a lot of it has always been there--not necessarily by trad publishers, but available because it's a niche market. Those looking for it knew where to go and those writing it knew where to 'publish.'

The porm genre is just more obvious now, and it's easier for it to be distributed. I can't speak to the quality. It is not a genre I read on purpose. I don't care what others read, but I am often offended by the covers. I don't think I should have to see that sort of thing while casually browsing a forum. Towels and grape leaves aside, some of the positioning and/or photos and/or titles are offensive to me.

I forgot about memoirs.

Is a pretty popular category. I do editing and I'd say that I get asked about helping out with a memoir more often than any other genre. HOWEVER, many people asking have little idea how to even begin writing a novel. They aren't really ready for editing...

I would think other nonfiction categories would be a hard sell, because the authors would need some kind of credentials; otherwise why would a reader trust their advice or pronouncements or even recipes?

Not really. If you list your credentials (and most do) it has a chance of selling. There's actually some good stuff out now with self publishing on topics that aren't that well covered by traditional publishers. Financial (trading systems) books are common in that area. They were often done by small publishers anyway. Now it's faster to get to market with a book. The charts/graphs weren't that great on early kindles, but with fire and color, that is improved. I still don't love the charting because those financial guys think everything can be charted and a long period of time versus a short period of time is important. That doesn't always show well on Kindle.

I know a doctor who has now self-published on some medical topics. There's actually a high number of people with various technical backgrounds who want a way to distribute information. More and more of them are getting their books out there and they sell pretty well. Many financial traders have a platform already (existing clients, radio shows even if they are local, seminars). I think this area is seeing some growth in both writers doing it and readers buying it. Being able to buy good technical info for under 10 dollars has been rare, so it's a boon to find a book that provides it.

Are you talking about Avon's Impulse line? As far as I know, that line is for e-books only, but I would not call it self-publishing.

I'd have to go look it up and ask the person who mentioned it because I don't read much romance myself and I haven't read any of that line. I've heard the whatever the "line" is it's poorly edited--as in gets copyedited but no storyline editing and no plot help. Sentence structure is poor, etc.

A number of publishers also have a "self publish" imprint; perhaps the ebook only is a "compromise." I guess it depends on who is paying for editing and how much editing is done.

I think the line between self-publishing, half publishing and so on is becoming very blurry.

[tompe]

I miss a discussion of the story editing here. Nearly all books published in the traditional way have been story edited or edited for structure. And that is not a fast process. And an author learns during this process so each book should get better. Even if all self published books were checked for language issues it is still a step back in quality from traditionally published books.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

A number of publishers also have a "self publish" imprint; perhaps the ebook only is a "compromise." I guess it depends on who is paying for editing and how much editing is done.

I think the line between self-publishing, half publishing and so on is becoming very blurry.

Most of the BPH's "self-publish" operations are actually fronts for Author Solutions.
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2...nda/#more-2755

As for the line blurring, why should there even be one to start with?

Some argue that it never really existed, inasmuch as whether a book is indie or trad-pubbed publishing is just a business decision made on a book-by-book basis. Today's "indie author" was yesterday's trad-pub veteran and vice versa.

Here is David Farland's take:

http://www.davidfarland.net/writing_tips/?a=228

It’s Not an Either-Or Decision
Many professional authors today have dual writing tracks. For example, my friends Kevin J. Anderson, Tracy Hickman, and Brandon Sanderson all started out with traditional publishing and still work in those careers, yet they also have some self-published works. These might include short stories or novellas, out-of-print works whose rights have reverted, or perhaps those old favorite “hard-to-sell” novels that they’ve always wanted to do.

And remember, even if you self-publish, you may find that your self-published works also attract traditional publishers. For example, my friend James Owen recently self-published “Drawing Out the Dragons: A Meditation on Art, Destiny, and the Power of Choice,” and soon found himself regaled by publishers who wanted to take it traditional. In the same way, Tracy Hickman created a new series about people living in a fantasy village—no earth-shattering wars, no high magic battles, just little personal tales. But as soon as he began to publish them, a major publisher begged for the rights, and the books appear to be doing well.

The only thing I'd quibble with is that he implies an author can choose to trad-pub a book.

The actual choice available to a author is whether or not to submit the book to the traditional publishing *process* to see *if* an agent chooses to present it to a publisher, who then decides if they *think* the book will sell enough for them and *they* choose whether to publish it or not. The trad-pub decision that matters is out of the hands of the author.

As Farland says, there are no absolutes; different authors will choose a different process for different books for different reasons. Just as readers have different expectations and preferences for what they choose to read, most writers have different goals and expectations for their books.

And, just as for readers what matters is finding reads that satisy *them*, what matters for authors is understanding the strengths and weakness of each approach and choosing the path best suited to *their* project, based on the realities of the business as it exists *today*.

(Oh, and avoiding Author Solutions like the plague. That one is pretty much a clear-cut absolute. )

[BearMountainBooks]

I thought Harlequin's "selfpub" arm was done by Harlequin (they sell the various editing packages), but, of course, they could easily contract it out to an existing vanity pub. Now as to whether anyone does any editing has always been a question. I never looked into it closely because I didn't care. It had a bad rep from the start as just another vanity publisher (in the worst way--bad service, bad editing and high prices.) Their only really extra was the hope that SOMEHOW a manuscript would be noticed by the real publishing arm. One of the publishers even has this in their marketing material. I can't remember which one it was. I read the marketing material when it first came out and was appalled at how they target the "Dream."

Part of the reason that self-publishing has such a bad rep is because of companies that sell services and don't deliver. Some of the trad publishers (Harlequin was one and there are others) opened a self-pub arm to essentially make money off of hopeful authors. Sadly, they didn't bother to offer any better services than any of the other vanity publishers from what I hear. They don't do real editing and they charge FAR MORE than is necessary. Any writer who wants to spend a few hours researching can find two or three editors, compare prices and services and pick one or two. But ultimately, the author better read through the manuscript about 3 times AFTER editing to make sure they know what they paid for. If you haven't worked with an editor before, do not believe the words, "I loved it. There's very little wrong with it." It may be truthful, but it probably isn't. Hire editors that pick that sucker apart. You don't have to make every change, but you want criticism. You want every comma to be questioned. Why, yes, you'll hate the process. You'll probably be livid, depressed, annoyed and disheartened.

Read it again anyway. Two or three times.

[derangedhermit]

Publishers, I would hazard, are not ideal gatekeepers. The Internet is a wonderful communications medium through which much better filters, gatekeepers and quality monitors can be created and used. There can be many of them, and people can find ones they like and trust, and contribute to them as they wish, etc.

Most of the posts in this thread (besides the off-topic posts) have discussed the situation as a false choice: publishers, or no filter/gatekeeper for readers. That is absolutely not the case, and everyone here knows that.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by derangedhermit

Publishers, I would hazard, are not ideal gatekeepers. The Internet is a wonderful communications medium through which much better filters, gatekeepers and quality monitors can be created and used. There can be many of them, and people can find ones they like and trust, and contribute to them as they wish, etc.

Most of the posts in this thread (besides the off-topic posts) have discussed the situation as a false choice: publishers, or no filter/gatekeeper for readers. That is absolutely not the case, and everyone here knows that.

I have a feeling for books published in the traditional manner. Not saying that feeling is correct or that I trust any publisher more than another, and some/many publishers I avoid. Still it is a more known quantity in my mind.

I am not that keen on the term gatekeeper as it seems to imply that the gatekeeper is keeping things out and letting only the priveledged few through. I don't actually think the publishing industry does that. They may be falling all over themselves to get best selling authors published, but I am pretty sure they publish many books that are by first time authors as well because they need more bestselling authors as the current crowd dies off.

You seem to be privy to another group of gatekeepers. I would be interested in several examples and how you feel that they have served your interests better than the publishers of yore.

Helen

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I have a feeling for books published in the traditional manner. Not saying that feeling is correct or that I trust any publisher more than another, and some/many publishers I avoid. Still it is a more known quantity in my mind.

I am not that keen on the term gatekeeper as it seems to imply that the gatekeeper is keeping things out and letting only the priveledged few through. I don't actually think the publishing industry does that. They may be falling all over themselves to get best selling authors published, but I am pretty sure they publish many books that are by first time authors as well because they need more bestselling authors as the current crowd dies off.



Helen

Not arguing the "known" quantity point at all. However, if you are a midlist author who has been dropped by your trad publisher because you don't make *quite* enough sales, I'd say you probably feel it's a place for a privileged few. More and more authors who sell well, but not "well enough" get dropped so that the publishers can try something different. There is nothing wrong with this business model per se, but as some of those authors have said, instead of dropping authors who sell, why not spend a little extra time on marketing for that author? The general gripe is that the best sellers get all the marketing because they are easy sells (and there is truth to that.)

One author blogged about how his series was dropped because he was paid too high an advance for the first three books. While the books earned out, they didn't take off as the publisher assumed, so the series was dropped. Doesn't mean it didn't sell, doesn't mean it didn't have readers. But the gatekeepers made an initial decision on the series and then decided not to pursue it further. The gatekeepers have a lot of criteria to look at. Nothing wrong with it, but it does make the whole thing a bit of a gamble for the reader and the writer. Unless said writer wants to put out more books in a series on his/her own, that series will not continue and it has little to do with the overall quality if quality is defined as "well-edited, well-plotted." It simply didn't find as large an audience as the publisher expected. The author believes that had the initial advance been smaller, he might still be writing the series--expectations would have been set differently, etc.

[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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am not that keen on the term gatekeeper as it seems to imply that the gatekeeper is keeping things out and letting only the priveledged few through. I don't actually think the publishing industry does that.

Uh, yes they do.
That is exactly what they do.
And gatekeeping is *their* term; they brag about it.

Here's a long, somewhat rambling post that eventually gets to the point:
http://www.theseattlevine.com/featur...h-remembering/

Anybody who gives half a rip about books or publishing has noted an interesting phenomenon this year. Vitriol against self-publishing has ramped up sharply in 2013. Articles decrying the indie literature movement are springing up all across the internet, from agents’ blogs to publishers’ Twitter feeds to major online magazines. On Salon.com alone, in 2013 alone, the lineup of articles have ranged from a rational contemplation of self-publishing culture to completely missing the mark to not one, but two pathetically misinformed and entitled bitch-fests about how self-publishing failed to make certain authors gazillionaires. (Never mind the fact that New York hasn’t made those guys gazillionaires, either.) And those are just some of the articles I’ve read, just in 2013, just on Salon.
.
.
.
What’s going on here?

I remember a few years ago when self-publishing was a joke, a guaranteed career-ender. Nobody ranted about self-publishing back then, because there was no need. It didn’t matter. It wasn’t a threat. And yet now the internet is full, suddenly, embarrassingly, of kicking and screaming from the traditional publishing world.

And what does that tell you?

I've seen over a dozen in the last month.
Some are amusing in their "my-ox-is getting-gored" obviousness.

On the gatekeeping issue:

In 2013, it has become more apparent than at any point since self-publishing became a legitimate “thing” that the slush pile has moved off the desks of unlucky, starving New York interns and onto the laps of everyday readers. Now it’s readers who sift, who sort, who judge. Now it’s readers who decide which authors make the cut and which are denied the success they crave. There are way more readers than interns. And so way more writers than ever before are making it out of the slush pile and into a sustainable career. Because there have always been more good books than publishers can publish.

And those readers and writers have stepped right around that crowd of people who formerly stood between them, and they have met face to face. For better or for worse.

Writers everywhere had, until very recently – maybe right up until 2013 – tacitly agreed to maintain for one another a mutual illusion. Or that’s the way it seems, given how popular certain would-be truisms still are amongst writers, even in 2013.

This illusion is a mantra you’ll often hear repeated on the more dogmatically anti-indie writers’ forums out there, as well as at writers’ conferences. I have no doubt that John Green and Andrew Franklin believe the mantra whole-heartedly. It goes something like this: All good books get published!

And by “get published,” we mean “Purchased by a real publisher. Contracted. Earn money. Probably lots of money. Accepted. Acceptance: that’s what you want, Writer, and if your book is good, then by god, it will bring you acceptance if you just wait long enough. Acceptance by the only people who matter: The Publishers.”

One does not need to be terribly perceptive to see how it behooves publishers and all who work for them (literary agents, booksellers, distributors) to encourage that pathetic old saw, to keep it circulating. After all, without writers lining up for a thimbleful of acceptance from publishers, publishers have no product to sell.

But why are writers so invested in that dogma? Is it perhaps a means of staving off the incredible disappointment so many authors feel at what that long-craved acceptance actually amounts to: meager advances, hellishly restrictive contracts, botched handling of covers and promotion? Is it to supplement the miserable pay – a percentage given over to your agent, of course! – with a wan feeling of accomplishment? Is it to fix the blinders more firmly to one’s face so one won’t notice that in 2013, when everybody on the planet has a device in his or her hand that has PayPal on it, publishers are still paying authors twice a year, with intentionally labyrinthine statements that disguise both the path and health of one’s finances?

What is this abusive marriage writers clearly have to such a silly and obviously wrong mantra? Why have we convinced ourselves that without the Publishing Industrial Complex, it is impossible to stand on our own two feet?

It was fellow indie author Karl Fields who recently pointed out to me how well this quote from the film Moneyball applies to the huffing and stomping, the kicking and flailing we are witnessing from all quarters of Bookworld as indie authors find more, better, faster success on their own, as we stop believing the war cry of John Green and others like him. As sales of self-publishing titles rise to 20% in the most lucrative genres in all of publishing:

I know you’re taking it in the teeth, but the first guy through the wall… he always gets bloody… always. This is threatening not just a way of doing business… but in their minds, it’s threatening the game. Really what it’s threatening is their livelihood, their jobs. It’s threatening the way they do things… and every time that happens, whether it’s the government, a way of doing business, whatever, the people who are holding the reins – they have their hands on the switch – they go batshit crazy.

The gatekeepers are feeling threatened; their business model is getting disrupted. So they lash out.
They lash out at ebooks and ereaders (they don't smell like real books do!).
They lash out at the first mover in the ebook mainstreaming (Amazon is eeee-vile! Really, honest! They are wrecking civilization!).
They lash out at the writers who dare venture into the unknown beyond the gatekept reservation.

Simple equation: gatekeeping = power.
Power of choice. Deciding who gets to market (Nicole Polizzi: yes, Amanda Hocking: no. At least not until she was selling by the million on her own.)
Power of setting contract terms ("Take it or leave it, that is how the industry works.").
Power to set and raise prices ("Print went up yet again so we need to raise prices again." "Oh, printing costs are a *tiny* part of the costs of producing a book!") at the drop of a hat, even through collusion. Easy to do with print in the old days, not so easy in the digital domain. And this time they were so blatant the caught the eye of the trust-busters of the DOJ.

The backlash?
The gatekeepers are losing (a portion of) their power.
So the do what old entrenched powers do when they are threaened by changing times; they dish out the FUD big time to get the sheep back in line.

They need to maintain the central myth that keeps them in business: that the *only* good books are the ones *they* publish. Nothing else is worth consumers notice or their money.

Finally, one of Franklin's smears caught her eye:

To declare that purchased Facebook friends and ill-gotten social media notice is “what passes for affirmation” amongst self-publishers is patently stupid. You may not be able to swing a dead cat meme on the internet without hitting somebody railing against the indie literature movement, but neither must you look very far to see how completely the good self-published authors are embraced by readers. I could spout a whole list of names that prove you wrong, but frankly, it’s been done to death already, and this article is long enough with still more length to go.

No, what passes for affirmation amongst the serious self-publishers – those who approach it as a business, as a career – is the acceptance of readers. Because in the end, readers and writers are the only necessary players in this game. The rest of you are rapidly becoming obsolete. Bowker’s 20% isn’t likely to go down by this time next year.

And that, is what has the gatekeepers in a frenzy: indie ebooks that bypass the traditional establishment, that don't surrender 87% of the book's revenues, are being accepted by *readers* as good and worthy product.

Enough that 20% of all UK book sales are indie. Enough that 25% of Nook sales are indie. Enough that 10% of Kobo's worldwide sales are from *their* inhouse indie channel. Enough that maybe half the romance books sold in the US are indie.

Note those are *sold* numbers, not published.
Those are "consumers voting their wallet" numbers.
Those are "reality shifting under your feet" numbers.
And there is worse (for them) coming, now that the major pbook distributors like B&T and Ingram are listing and distributing POD indie *pbooks* the same as the trad-pubbed titles.
What is happening in ebooks is moving to (trade paperback) pbooks and (soon) hardcovers.

The disruption in book publishing and distribution that started with ebooks isn't stopping there.

And neither is the FUD from the (properly) scared traditionalists.

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 power is moving dwnstream, where it always belonged. And now it is up to us to use that power responsibly. Because, as somebody keeps saying (ad-nauseum) with great power comes great responsibility. In this case, the responsibility to set your own standards of good or bad; to read what pleases you and accept that others have their own standards, something Mr Franklin and his ilk seek to deny us.

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. If anything, it's fun; exercising my new-found power to find reading jewels on my own.

More folks should give it a try; it's not at all hard to do.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by tompe

I miss a discussion of the story editing here. Nearly all books published in the traditional way have been story edited or edited for structure. And that is not a fast process. And an author learns during this process so each book should get better. Even if all self published books were checked for language issues it is still a step back in quality from traditionally published books.

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.