[Ty Johnston]

Yeah, I'm not in lock step with everything there.

"Fewer cheerleaders." Sure, I can go along with that.

"More critics." Uh ... for the love of all that is holy, aren't there already enough critics of self publishing? Can I go one single, solitary day without seeing someone blogging a scathing post about self publishing and self publishers? Or some magazine or newspaper article dooming and glooming self publishing? Or some exec somewhere talking about how self publishing has now run its course?

While I admit there are writers out there publishing material that might not be up to snuff, at least by someone's standards, that doesn't mean it's my job to s--- all over their dreams. There are plenty of people out there on the Internet who are already willing, quite gleefully, to stomp all over someone else for no real reason whatsoever. I don't need to add to that, and whether readers or anyone else does or not, I don't consider indie writers a collective that needs me to try and police it.

 

[Ty Johnston]

Everyone's better served if your criticism is, "Here's what I think worked well about your book. Here's what I think you should work on next time."

Which is exactly what I do when I'm asked to mentor a fellow writer, on the rare occasions when I have time to do so. My simple offering of a "congrats" to someone online who has recently self published their first work is kind of my own business, for one thing, and doesn't exactly give full acceptance or approval of the entire, massively broad culture that makes up indie writers, for another.

 

[Ty Johnston]

If you want to be treated like less-than writers and publishers, act like and produce less-than works and covers.

Who is to be the judge of these less-than works? Who is to say a certain work should not be presented for public viewing and potential purchase?

Also, this precludes that every single self publisher has exactly the same goals in mind, which is far from the truth. Not everyone has a goal of being a professional author, or of having writing as a career, or of how such a career should unfold.

I try to present myself as a professional, and I deal with other writers and editors and publishers as professionals, but that's because this is my day job. When I deem it necessary, I'll call someone out on spouting BS or the like, but it's not my place, nor should it be anyone else's, to go around policing indie writers. That's why they're "indie," so as not to answer to anyone else.

Would I like every single indie publication to be presented in its most polished, most professional manner? Sure. But that's not realistic. You can't have it both ways, indies and gatekeepers at the same time and in the same place. Sorry, folks. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Ty Johnston]

How can the stigma ever leave if sub-par efforts are hoisted into the air with cheers?

And where exactly is this happening?

I see the occasional "congrats" posting for a new novel and the like, but I'm not seeing blogs and kboard posts and Amazon posts or Facebook posts or anyplace where sub-par works are being cheered on.

If anything, the blog posts and such I see which do champion self publishing almost always include a point of telling writers to publish only their best works.

 

[Ty Johnston]

I don't get why suggesting that criticism is a good thing gets up people's noses though.

I don't believe anyone has suggested criticism isn't a good thing, or that it can't be a good thing. What people are frustrated with, or at least what I'm frustrated with, is being reprimanded for not doing something that in all actuality is being done already. And yes, Wendig and others aren't calling me out personally by name, but when they lump all indie authors underneath some kind of giant, fictitious umbrella, yeah, that includes me.

Besides, I've already got someone to tell me to do things I've already done. She's my wife.

 

[Ty Johnston]

I celebrate someone writing a book that objectively is terrible and going through the steps to make a terrible cover and a terrible blurb and publishing it and then they keep on going and write something a little better, with a better cover and a better blurb and then they keep going some more.

That's also a solid point in favor of indies and hybrids, one I don't see touted often. There was a time when traditional publishers groomed writers, when there wasn't an expectation of every single book being published having to be a bestseller, when writers were allowed to improve with each book, to gradually build a career upon an increasing level of craftsmanship. The major traditional publishers haven't worked that way, for the most part, in at least a couple of decades, maybe longer. Indies can slowly build an audience, can slowly work on their craft, without worrying about their contract being slashed and burned and their career screeching to a halt because they didn't meet some bean counters expectations. This doesn't mean an indie should publish any old piece of garbage, but it does give them breathing room to continue working on their craft without the weight of the world being put upon their shoulders by an immediate outside source than could make or break their career for the flimsiest of reasons.

 

[Ty Johnston]

We can bemoan the poor quality of various indie works, or even various trad-pubbed works. We can use terms like "objective quality" when no such thing actually exists, though others will argue otherwise ... yet they are wrong ... a "consensus of quality" perhaps, but not objective. We can gripe about bad covers, bad writing, etc. We can promote good writing, quality covers, etc.

And at the end of the day, not one little bit of it is going to matter, with the possible exception of nudging a handful of writer/publishers into upping their quality.

Why?

Because we don't live in that world anymore.

Equating publishing with business is no longer an objective reality when anyone can publish.

Former newspaper journalist here. We fought the good fight a decade and more ago. The traditionalists didn't win, mainly because they couldn't or wouldn't open their eyes to the new reality. One could argue (easily) that the current state of journalism is atrocious, print and otherwise, but it still changed regardless of what many wanted, and to some extent that even includes the wants of the readerships and viewerships.

Two decades back it was television killing newspapers, then it was the Internet killing newspapers, and then it was blogs killing newspapers, while all along the truth of the matter was newspapers were killing newspapers. I see the same thing happening today in book publishing, many of the same complaints and concerns, many of the same disputes, and in the end there will likely be the same period of fragmentation followed by a handful of corporations controlling practically everything because they saw the future while the rest of us bickered and rung our hands worrying about what everyone else was doing when we should be focusing upon our own work.

Maybe that's part of what Chuck is suggesting, maybe not. I don't want to put words in his mouth.

But I do disagree with anyone who continues to believe not just writing, but that even publishing, is still a business-only venture. It's not. It's a business for some of us, perhaps the majority of us, but not for everyone.

 

[Ty Johnston]

How's that? Better? Or did I murder puppies, too?

-- sniff -- The poor puppies.

Murderer!

 

[Ty Johnston]

Self-publishing is not the Make a Wish Foundation. It does not exist to fulfill people's dreams or cover their bills in a pinch.

It exists for whatever purpose the publisher intends, and for whatever Amazon and similar sites allow through their TOS. One doesn't have to like it, but that's reality.

 

[Ty Johnston]

I've procrastinated editing my scifi serial all day to read this thread.

Okay, now this made me laugh, in no small part because I'm in the same boat (though fantasy novel instead of scifi serial).

But I like popcorn, too.

 

[Ty Johnston]

Not a single person has posted a link to a post showing authors saying "yeah, just write it and throw it up". Not a single blog post. Not a single discussion where people say just churn and go.

Not exactly the same thing, but to play devil's advocate for a moment ...

"Writers are the worst judges of their own work, but alas, we all still have strong opinions of our work when finished. So when you write a story that sucks in your belief as a writer and you wouldn't want anyone to see it under your main name, sell it under a pen name. This is becoming very easy in indie publishing. And has been a standard practice since the beginning of publishing. You might be surprised how well your bad story sells. Let the readers decide."

Guess who said that? It wasn't someone who started out as an indie.

Link: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=7849