Kindle Forum banner

Indie Book Quality - Framing the Argument

11K views 75 replies 44 participants last post by  Rykymus 
#1 ·
Hi,

It occurred to me today that we as indies have been fighting a losing battle by trying to argue that indie books are of the same quality as trade published books. Certainly many are, but at the same time a great many aren't. Which means that the quality of an indie book on average is less than that of a trade published book. This is basic statistics, and as long as many indie authors produce poor quality work, there's nothing we can do about it. And readers will know this - let's be honest. They aren't dumb. And if they've been browsing as I do and checked out a lot of books, indie as well as trade, they will have come across some poor indie works.

Those invested in the trade publishing world have of course seized on this quality gap and used it as a club to beat us over the head with. Again, this is their bread and butter we're threatening, so there's not much we can do about that either.

And so we as indies will always be labelled with the stigma of poor quality.

But, and here's where things get turned around, the underlying reason for this difference is the presence or absence of gatekeepers. In the trade publishing world books of substandard quality simply aren't produced - or shouldn't be. But the gatekeepers have been knocking out books for other reasons than quality. And as all of us know, often the reason for their rejections has been commercial success. In short if a book didn't fit in a commerial genre or follow a particular commercial trope, it was unlikely to be picked up.

That means if you want original, fresh work, you're much more likely to find it among indie books than the trade published.

So maybe instead of trying to argue a losing cause and to claim that indie books are of the same quality on average as trade published, we should instead be arguing a winning one. That indie books are fresher, more original, more creative etc. And if those invested in trade publishing claim we produce poor quality work that they would never publish, we as those invested in the indie publishing world argue that they produce formulaic, derivative, generic and unoriginal work.

This is in debating a thing called framing the argument. Showing the true costs of choices etc. So everybody wants better health care but no one wants to pay higher taxes. You can't have both. So maybe readers want higher quality books, but they don't want boring, repetitive stuff that they've read a hundred times before.

Just a thought.

Cheers, Greg.
 
See less See more
#52 ·
Bards and Sages (Julie) said:
A few points of clarification:

To stay on point, the people complaining about "poor quality" in indie books don't even know prepper fiction is a thing. These conversations very specifically are addressed toward the more mainstream genres. It doesn't make sense to use Joe Nobody as an example of a great indie because he is working in an area not even on the radar of most people. Trade publishing is also full of small niches that cater to unique demographics. Pulling the exceptions on either side into the equation only muddies the waters, because the very people we are talking about "the ones who may be complaining about quality" aren't complaining about the niches. They are complaining about the stuff showing up in their searches when they look for a fantasy or a mystery or a horror novel.

People confuse originality with creativity or even talent. I believe it was Mark Twain that said "All ideas are second-hand." We all start out wanting to be "original." But "originality" is not the goal of storytelling. The goal of storytelling is to speak on the human condition. Readers read not to see something original per se. They read to engage in the human experience. They read to be entertained. The read for comfort and familiarity. They read to escape. I watched Henry IV pt 1 last night (with Jeremy Irons and Tom Hiddleston). It was the most beautiful production of the play I've ever seen. But it wasn't "original." They didn't change the play or the characters or turn Percy into a vampire or Prince Hal into a fairy. Ye gods, Henry IV wasn't even "original" when Shakespeare wrote it! Everyone knew the basics of the story. But what made it great was the interpretation of the story. The ability to take an old story and make it mean something to a modern viewer.

Which is why I always flinch at the "indies are more original" argument. It is simply untrue. But more importantly, it is completely besides the point. A great storyteller can take the most basic of tales and make it mean something to a reader, while a bad storyteller can have the most original idea ever thought of and nobody will care.
Thanks, Julie. I don't think using ElHawk and Joe Nobody as examples is that outlandish: I was just using them as examples of things that have been successful, that there obviously is a demand for, and that Big Pub (not small press) did/would not bother with. BUT I was talking more generally about the benefits of self-publishing to readers, not about responding to naysayers, mainly because I don't think that's worthwhile at all. So I guess my post was tangential to the point of the OP, though not unrelated.

On originality: I completely agree that originality is not the goal of storytelling -- and that originality doesn't, in itself, mean "good." But IMO, a fresh twist on a girl-meets-boy story is still original and, well, refreshing. Its "originality" isn't negated because the base premise is old. There's originality of expression, of execution, of interpretation. /derail

So, I maintain that the Big 5 placed restrictions on originality (or variety? creativity?) that self-pub has lifted. And that is a selling point for self-published books. Okay, quality might be spotty, but when if you take the time to dig in the pile, you're also going to find a lot of good, different, fresh stuff that Big Pub can't and won't provide. I think that's pretty awesome. :) [As an aside, good/different/fresh is also a selling point of small press.]

I definitely DON'T think "indies are more original," though. That doesn't make sense, and that's definitely not what I was saying.. Any writer has the potential to be original, regardless of how they publish. And I'm not saying that all indies are putting original stuff, either. I'm just saying that self-publishing has made it more financially viable for authors to write original/innovative/fresh/different (which is to say, unproven) things, and easier for readers to discover them.

When I talk up my Kindle to other readers, we usually end up talking about self-published books. Most people do wonder how the quality is, and my answer is that you learn to sort the good from the bad, and that there is a lot more variety, and almost always at a great price. That's why the Wendig debate is really moot: the tradeoff for readers is price/content diversity vs. navigating quality, and ultimately, the benefits of the former outweigh the cons of the latter.

We (if there is a "we") should focus on the good things self-pub provides, and on putting out good work, rather than wasting time defending ourselves against naysayers.
 
#53 ·
cinisajoy said:
The only way I know an indie from a trad is if the indie screams it. Now do not get me started on indies that use others. Oh and I learned something this week. If you want to write about a real person even fictionally, you had best get that person's permission or the estate's permission.
As to your second point, it depends. If I wrote a satire about Lady Gaga, for instance, the law would likely protect me even though her lawyers might sue. To stay on the safe side with The Fight of the Century, that you read, I changed the names because one was still living. It was not an open and shut case, however.
 
#54 ·
DianaGabriel said:
We (if there is a "we") should focus on the good things self-pub provides, and on putting out good work, rather than wasting time defending ourselves against naysayers.
Again, if nobody stands up to defend indies, the perception will be that whatever is being said in those countless articles, countless blogs etc.. is true. They'll point and say, "See, they don't even try to deny it!" I sucks to have to defend yourself, and we come off as defensive when we do it, but the alternative is to see what "they" say about us, be accepted as undisputed truth. There's a couple gems here and there, but the rest of it sucks, so don't even bother clicking on it unless it has the trad seal of approval.
 
#55 ·
JRTomlin said:
Hugh Howey said something in another thread that he was happy to be part of allowing a twelve your old girl to put her NaNoWriMo novel up for sale (sorry if I misquote him slightly since I'm not sure exactly which thread he posted that in).
So he gets behind a 12-year-old self-publishing a novel she wrote in a month on one day, and the next day he's saying people have no right to claim that indies put self-realization ahead of quality for readers? Something's gotta give here. Either what matters most to indies is "what I want" (Wendig's complaint) or what matters most is putting my best foot forward as a business person (i.e., a publisher). You're either in favour of trying to sell people whatever (i.e., because there are no standards) or you're against trying to sell people whatever (i.e., because there are standards and I try to follow them). You can't have it both ways.

I sympathize with people upset over the stigma when they're doing work that's as good or better than that of traditional publishers-and selling it at a better price to boot. And I have no problem going to bat for good individual writers and books. But I can't get behind this "indie ideology" that celebrates 12-year-olds selling books they wrote in 30 days because, apparently, the most important thing in the world is to flatter the egos of others-that's to engage in the "cheap virtue" that comes at someone else's expense.

Hence my slogan: "There's no 'we' in independent."
 
#56 ·
Hudson Owen said:
As to your second point, it depends. If I wrote a satire about Lady Gaga, for instance, the law would likely protect me even though her lawyers might sue. To stay on the safe side with The Fight of the Century, that you read, I changed the names because one was still living. It was not an open and shut case, however.
No, the law would not protect you unless it was a parody and everyone knows the person would never do that. You could be sued for various things. If you want to try that might I recommend Sean Penn or Barbra Streisand. But I guess you are so rich, you could fight them and their lawyers. Oh I wasn't talking satires, I was talking using the names just so people would buy your book.
 
#57 ·
WHDean said:
So he gets behind a 12-year-old self-publishing a novel she wrote in a month on one day, and the next day he's saying people have no right to claim that indies put self-realization ahead of quality for readers? Something's gotta give here. Either what matters most to indies is "what I want" (Wendig's complaint) or what matters most is putting my best foot forward as a business person (i.e., a publisher). You're either in favour of trying to sell people whatever (i.e., because there are no standards) or you're against trying to sell people whatever (i.e., because there are standards and I try to follow them). You can't have it both ways.

I sympathize with people upset over the stigma when they're doing work that's as good or better than that of traditional publishers-and selling it at a better price to boot. And I have no problem going to bat for good individual writers and books. But I can't get behind this "indie ideology" that celebrates 12-year-olds selling books they wrote in 30 days because, apparently, the most important thing in the world is to flatter the egos of others-that's to engage in the "cheap virtue" that comes at someone else's expense.

Hence my slogan: "There's no 'we' in independent."
Well, obviously, I'm "for" trying to sell people "whatever", since I don't know if my work would pass the test. For all I know, the 12 year-old girl's book is better than mine. But I'll still argue that there is very good writing among the indies, and that they shouldn't be lumped together (other than the top tier) as sucking, and not worth a look. The argument isn't that people aren't trying to sell "whatever", it's that there is still god writing mixed in there with my "whatever."
 
#60 ·
jackz4000 said:
This morning I was pretty surprised to see that Publishers Weekly now has a Self-Publishing section. Plus they are happy to take a couple hundred bucks from authors to list their books. If you can't beat then--milk them. :p
They started that a year or more ago. I have to wonder how much they've made off authors and whether those authors have seen any benefit to their being listed in PW's self-pub issues.
 
#61 ·
JRTomlin said:
You know, Woody Guthrie said something about music that this conversation reminded me of:

"I hate a song that makes you think that you are not any good. I hate a song that makes you think that you are just born to lose. Bound to lose. No good to nobody. No good for nothing. Because you are too old or too young or too fat or too slim too ugly or too this or too that. Songs that run you down or poke fun at you on account of your bad luck or hard traveling."
Woody Guthrie also reportedly said (Pete Seeger wouldn't have lied to us, would he?) that "plagarism is basic to all cultures." And "Aw, he stole from me, but I steal from everybody." Not at all pertinent to this conversation, but I can never resist a good Woody Guthrie quote.

/hijack
 
#62 ·
Jay Allan said:
I appreciate the sentiment you offer, but I'm not sure how it's just a matter of time on the indie quality front when three-quarters of the authors on here go batcrap crazy at the mere suggestion there is anything imperfect about any self-pubbed works. I guess we'll see.
Whoops, missed this. I really do see a drive to quality that's being enabled by the growing number of authors. Sure, most people aren't likely to have read an awesome indie book - but as more and more truly excellent indie books sift upwards, more and more people will encounter them. At the same time, more indie authors are finding editors and other contractors. It all boils down to hunches and guesses on my part! I think that's the trouble with trying to pinpoint publishing trends: it is so difficult to get the data you need for meaningful analysis. I only have my own experience to go off of.
 
#63 ·
Betsy the Quilter said:
Woody Guthrie also reportedly said (Pete Seeger wouldn't have lied to us, would he?) that "plagarism is basic to all cultures." And "Aw, he stole from me, but I steal from everybody." Not at all pertinent to this conversation, but I can never resist a good Woody Guthrie quote.

/hijack
I believe that Mark Twain (although I'm not going to double check the source) said that there are no original stories. I suspect that he was right and so was Woody. ;)
 
#64 ·
As indies we're writers and publishers.

The best defense against this blatant nonsense is writing good books and finding readers for them.

Who do you think will look like a silly liar when one of your fans reads a whining blog post about how all indies suck? Or when anyone reads how indies are gaining market share?

Over time the writers of these The-End-of-Literature-is-Nigh posts will drown in their own pool of FUD.
 
#66 ·
While this is about the Quality Assurance (QA) done by indie authors, I think we should also take a look at the other side of the argument: QA done by traditional publishers.

In all honesty, most of the ebooks I've gotten from self-published authors have been fine. The vast majority of ebooks where I have had significant quality issues actually came from traditional publishers!

The worst being a top imprint (whose name rhymes with "Phantom") whose ebooks were formatted like web pages with block paragraphs and double-line spacing. It was so bad, I finally broke down, stripped out the DRM and manually fixed the files myself! It wasn't difficult either. All I had to do was two tiny edits in the CSS file to turn the print into actual literary text. The worst was what they did to Dragonriders of Pern. They were actually the files for the PalmPilot, not for modern ebook readers! The typesetting was so horrible as to make it unreadable. I even called them about it and filed a complaint. To date, I haven't yet felt motivated to wade into the sludge and clean up that mess to make that ebook readable.

At the other end of the spectrum is Baen Books. CLEARLY they understand QA and what readers expect from their ebooks. Every ebook I have purchased from Baen has been an absolutely perfect example of a proper ebook file. Their EPUB files render properly on every ebook reader I have and will even convert cleanly to MOBI. I use Baen Books EPUB files as models for when I make my own ebooks to make sure my coding is correct. I can also say that in all the ebooks I've purchased from Baen, I really haven't found any editing errors, either.

For these reasons, if I ever chose to accept a traditional publishing contract, Baen is at the top of my extremely short list.
 
#67 ·
WDR said:
In all honesty, most of the ebooks I've gotten from self-published authors have been fine. The vast majority of ebooks where I have had significant quality issues actually came from traditional publishers!
This is what I've heard from a lot of readers and what I've experienced myself. I got a traditionally published ebook once where all instances of one letter were changed to a different letter (I can't remember which one). I think it had something to do with the scanning process they used to convert the book from print to digital?? I have no idea. Traditional publishers also seem to have a fascination with getting "fancy" with formatting that overrides your Kindle settings. So they go from the extreme of seeming to not try at all to trying too hard :). Personally, I like simple formatting for ebooks.
 
#68 ·
caethesfaron said:
This is what I've heard from a lot of readers and what I've experienced myself. I got a traditionally published ebook once where all instances of one letter were changed to a different letter (I can't remember which one). I think it had something to do with the scanning process they used to convert the book from print to digital?? I have no idea. Traditional publishers also seem to have a fascination with getting "fancy" with formatting that overrides your Kindle settings. So they go from the extreme of seeming to not try at all to trying too hard :). Personally, I like simple formatting for ebooks.
I got one that almost every "the" was "die". Made it hard to read. Another trad every period was a /.
 
#69 ·
DianaGabriel said:
So, if we're talking about, like, experimental literary fiction, I totally agree -- not much of these writers are taking advantage of self-pub. I think that's partly because the self-pub stigma is especially strong in literary circles (I say this coming from academia): I think lit-fic is still pretty attached to the traditional publishing model. But indies are providing readers with fresh, original content: or at least content big pub refused to try out.
Self-publishing is a business model and a technology. Ultimately, that will prove out as more of the genres shift into indie publishing. Writers of talent who have been overlooked by trad publishing will prefer to publish rather that accept silence. Also, manuscripts in the 7,000 - 30,000 word zone are unwanted by paper publishers; but length matters not to the Kindle e-reader. That is the technological advantage of e-books with the e-reader. And, of course, you can set your prices and do other things as a self-publisher. You have more work to do, but you also have more flexibility.
 
#70 ·
vrabinec said:
Like it our not, we're being lumped together. Same as trad authors are being lumped together. I think there is a sense of community, or we wouldn't be here trying to help each other. Yeah, I don't want to be associated with anyone else's stuff. I want my books to stand alone on their own merits. But that's not up to me when there is article after article after article that claims that we are essentially the same, with the exception of Hugh, Bella, Russell, and three or four others.
Lumped together by whom? And those articles? Who reads them? All this seems to be a lively discussion within a small group that doesn't buy enough to affect the market.

As long as the independent market share continues too increase in both dollars and units, I'd say the lumpers and articles are pissing into the wind. Fine with me. I'll hand them another beer.

Again, if nobody stands up to defend indies, the perception will be that whatever is being said in those countless articles, countless blogs etc.. is true. They'll point and say, "See, they don't even try to deny it!" I sucks to have to defend yourself, and we come off as defensive when we do it, but the alternative is to see what "they" say about us, be accepted as undisputed truth. There's a couple gems here and there, but the rest of it sucks, so don't even bother clicking on it unless it has the trad seal of approval.
Another alternative is to forget about the quality distinction between two huge groups of books. Consumers don't need us to tell them what they like. The consumers who care what independent and traditional spokesman think don't buy enough books to move the market either way.
 
#71 ·
psychotick said:
That means if you want original, fresh work, you're much more likely to find it among indie books than the trade published.

So maybe instead of trying to argue a losing cause and to claim that indie books are of the same quality on average as trade published, we should instead be arguing a winning one. That indie books are fresher, more original, more creative etc. And if those invested in trade publishing claim we produce poor quality work that they would never publish, we as those invested in the indie publishing world argue that they produce formulaic, derivative, generic and unoriginal work.
I get what you're saying Greg,

However, I see this whole thing like this. I'm an individual writer. In fact, we are all individuals who are working to release our stories. We're not one monolithic group. We all have our own personal goals and ideas of success. Yes, some indie writers do get into this for money and that's their choice. Some pursue this route for art and finding an audience and that's their choice. Some indie novels are very formulaic and stick to genre tropes and that's their choice. I guess what I'm getting at is there's no one way or the other. We're just a mass of people writing words and publishing them for an infinite number of reasons. As far as quality, I think some things are objectively bad like bad grammar or whatever.

But who is going to say one book is of higher quality than another? Why not just let the reader decide? Unfortunately, I can't remember the poster's name. It's buried in the now locked "Chuck Wendig" topic. But he made a post saying how he "chatted" up Jeff Bezos and they agreed on a list of facetious quality measurements.

Being an indie published author doesn't give you more "cred" it's just an avenue like trad. publishing. I would argue, one road is harder than the other but there are traditionally pubbed authors that are terrific (China Mieville) and being trad. published doesn't mean you're not as interested in being a great storyteller.

Again, it the choice of walking one road or the other. Each of us walks it alone, but for whatever reason people get their jollies by lumping us all together.
 
#72 ·
caethesfaron said:
I think it had something to do with the scanning process they used to convert the book from print to digital??
Yes, OCR can create odd things during conversion. But if publishers really wanted to maintain their credibility, they'd pay proofreaders. I did when I converted my backlist. If I can afford it, I'm sure they can.

What you're seeing is a rush to throw up authors' backlist in an effort to 1. counteract all the money being lost to indies and 2. make sure they can contractually hold onto the rights for those backlist books until Christ returns.
 
#73 ·
vrabinec said:
Well, obviously, I'm "for" trying to sell people "whatever", since I don't know if my work would pass the test. For all I know, the 12 year-old girl's book is better than mine. But I'll still argue that there is very good writing among the indies, and that they shouldn't be lumped together (other than the top tier) as sucking, and not worth a look. The argument isn't that people aren't trying to sell "whatever", it's that there is still god writing mixed in there with my "whatever."
Recall the OP's basic question, which, I should add, is a reasonable one: How do you get rid of the poor-quality stigma associated with the indie/SP brand? The first part of the answer is that you can't fix the brand because you can't control what gets self-published or who flies the indie flag. The second part of the problem is that you can't control the brand's representatives. Look at it from the trad-pub perspective. Franzen runs down SP books and a lot of people identify him and his attitude with traditional publishing, as if he's the spokesman for every trad-pubbed writer. They say, "Look! That's what they're all about! Snobs! Elitists!" The same thing happens to the indie brand when people shout "embrace mediocrity" and celebrate 12-year-olds selling books they wrote in a month. Outsiders say, "Look! I told you! These people are all hacks!"

So what does someone who wants to self-publish good books do about the stigma? For one, you probably don't want to draw attention to the fact by doing and saying stereotypical things: bad covers, bad blurbs, bad formatting, bad prose, bad attitude toward readers, screeching at critics and reviewers, etc. As far as I can tell, all the successful self-published people have followed indie marketing tactics, but they've followed trad-pubbed books when it comes to the product (i.e., you can't really tell from looking at their books that they're self-published).

Put another way, the successful people haven't tried to gain acceptance by first wining an ideological/brand war that can't be won; they've adapted to the environment as it is. That's why all their advice mirrors traditional practice: professional covers, blurbs, formatting, editing, etc., and not, "Well, first we have to persuade Franzen et al. that SP books are all great because everything's a matter of taste. Unless the poor quality is in a trad book; then quality does exist and trad books don't have it either! And I gotta right!"

As for your book, this is the only answer(s) I can give. If a friend came to me and said he'd written the great American novel and that he was going to self-publish it, I'd probably say, "Good for you! I hope the world is ready" (and under my breath, "Don't forget to use a penname"). If a friend came to me for help with a novel and said he wanted to make a living writing, I'd probably read the manuscript, point out what I thought were problems, offer whatever fixes I could, and repeat everything successful indies have said about writing and selling books. The only important note on these two answers is that there's no half-way between them. I'm not playing Publishing Police in the first case, but I'm not playing Snowflake Apostle in the second either.

WDR said:
LOL! Yeah, there is that! But more to the point, there are very many indie titles that are priced just like their mainstream-published peers and are selling very well.
Good to know someone (other than Vrab) has a sense of humour. Konrath used to talk a lot about the advantage of low prices. Because you can sell your books for less than traditional books, you can sell more of them (all other things being equal). That's a huge advantage for SP writers because the higher royalties more than compensate for the lower per unit price: you can sell more books at a higher profit. Now that SP books show up in bestseller lists, people assume a kind of parity has been reached. That might be good for the validation of the writer's indie ego; but it's not good for the writer-as-publisher to forget that price is one of the most important variables in sales. (Of course, I never get distracted by ego because I already have a surplus of it.)
 
#74 ·
WHDean said:
Recall the OP's basic question, which, I should add, is a reasonable one: How do you get rid of the poor-quality stigma associated with the indie/SP brand? The first part of the answer is that you can't fix the brand because you can't control what gets self-published or who flies the indie flag. The second part of the problem is that you can't control the brand's representatives.
But I don't think the average consumer even knows they are reading indie books. They buy from an Amazon list or an also-bought or from a Bookbub email and never check to see who the publisher is. Even then the self-publisher can be obfuscated through a small pub house or custom imprint.

Now, if they read a poorly edited book and check out the publisher, it can reaffirm their bias -- "Of course it was bad, it was self-published" -- while not realizing many other good books they have read were indies.

I don't think "Indie Book" can be a brand. Just like "American Car" is not a brand. There are good ones and bad ones in both groups.
 
#75 ·
Hi,

Thank you Emily. Your "American Car" encapsulated the problem perfectly. Yes there is no brand called American Car but still cars are bought and sold and more importantly valued on the basis of their country of origin - unfair as it is.

For example - and I'll mention country and not brand - if a friend of mine were to say he was considering buying an Italian car - with very limited high end exceptions I would be telling him not to. The reputation of a couple or three Italian car makers for poor build quality and unreliability not to mention depreciation of their products is simply that terrible.

If he were to say Swedish I would instantly be thinking boring but reliable. German equates to extremely well engineered, good build quality and highly reliable. Japanese is the same but generally lacking in style.

Now all of this means that if a new carmaker comes out of Germany he has a head start in terms of potential customer's expectations of his product. A new Italian carmaker (unless it's a super expensive top end sport car) begins life with a massive disadvantage. Which is why the best thing an Italian carmaker start up can do is try and make his car look and sound like it comes from somewhere else. Or else emphasise the sporty nature of the beast.

Or in our case, an indie can try and make is book look as trade published as possible. (Did someone here mention that they were even putting their own publisher marks on their books?)

Cheers, Greg.
 
#76 ·
An intelligent buyer choose a product based on the merits of the product, not all similar products by makers ranging from known companies to unknown ones.

If a reader believes that quality books only come from traditional publishing companies, I would prefer not to have them as a customer.

I'd rather have readers who like my work for what it is, a self-published book, and not because I led them to believe that it was something more akin to a traditionally published book.

To me, it's as simple as that.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top