Kindle Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I subscribe to Entertainment Weekly to keep up with books.  Not with films, not with tv shows.  This week under books they pontificated on "self-pub and indie writers"--Hocking and Locke, pronouncing both as less than quality.  

The thing is, even if some of us aren't selling in the millions, by feeding into the current crazes, EW's #1 James Patterson is not exactly literati.

So what's their beef? It seemed to me that they are saying "this is the best of self-pub and look how poorly we rate it."  I know they often give B or C+ grades even to authors like Quindlen, but this one time they look at self-pub, they can't find ANYTHING worth reading?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,251 Posts
There's actually another thread on this, if you're curious:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,76464.0.html

My personal opinion - an honest review is hardly a slam, and being reviewed by EW and treated the same as any other author is a good thing. Why is it that they automatically have a "beef"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,546 Posts
Hey, it's free publicity. I've considered sending my books to the NY Times review just to get them slammed. Maybe they would slam it so hard as to be comical, and that's when people are intrigued. Even the mean slamming can have positive benefits for an indie.

It's the same way you create celebrities. The people who follow celebrities know when a new one appears. The people who don't follow them (i.e. the majority of us) only hear about them when they have their first scandal or do something ridiculous and embarrassing. Then, we all know them. They're a household name. Their faults get so widely publicized that everyone knows at least one bad thing about them.

For instance, Snookie is a NY Times Bestseller. I'd never heard of "Snookie" before she hit the tops of the list, and I only heard about her from internet blogs going nuts about how she hit the NY Times bestseller list. So, negative publicity is still publicity.
 
G

·
They did not "pontificate."  They objectively judged the literary merits of the books.

They did not actually say anything in the reviews that Amanda has not said herself about her books.  Amanda is the first to admit her early books needed better editing.  She's a professional and can admit to past errors.  More indies should seek to emulate that trait.

The only people with "a beef" seem to be indies who think indies need to be treated with kid gloves.  Frankly, if you read EW regularly, you know they routinely slam even popular mainstream books and movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
In the other thread, someone posted a bunch of info on past reviews. Based on her "grade" Amanda actually did very well, comparatively. EW rarely assigns perfect grades in their reviews.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top