[vrabinec]

Or maybe everyone is better served by leaving it up to the reader and getting on about their own business of doing their own work.

ETA: I happen to hate, I mean absolutely loathe, 50 Shades of Gray. I read most of the sample and was sickened by the poor quality and the cover sucked. Did I have the right to tell readers they couldn't buy it or EL James that she didn't have the right to publish it?

No.

And she would have very rightfully ignored my opinion. It's not my business. My next novel is my business and that's all. The author of the blog piece needs to get over himself.

Yeah, I'm all in for helping authors who ask for help, but there seems to be an implication that those whose work is sub-par should be made aware of it and asked to amend it. Sub-par by whose standards? Amend it to whose taste? The predominant view among indies who want the "bad" indie novels cleaned up is, clean theirs, but don't you dare insult mine because mine is that way due to artistic choices. I think boards like this and the others I hang out on are pretty honest with authors who ask for help to go along with the encouragement the authors receive. I think it's a fairly good system as is. Anything beyond what we have now would be tiptoeing into the gatekeeper's realm, and none of us wanna go there.

 

[vrabinec]

You! Yeah, you! Quit publishing that [email protected] and start writing like ME!

Hey, if you want me to write like you, you better fix your hyphens. They're...irregular.

 

[vrabinec]

I thought I posted this last night, but maybe I missed the "post" button in my stupor.  Forgive me if it's a dupe.

I was on deviantart last night, wondering why there are no articles and millions of blog posts calling for artists to call out their own kind for posting "sub-par" work. You don't hear them calling each other out to take some classes and stop dumping inferior product on the market that buries the "good" art. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[vrabinec]

I believe this is Chuck's follow-up post.

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2014/01/28/follow-up-on-self-publishing-readers-are-not-good-gatekeepers/

He quotes KB member Emily Cantore.

Hmm, hi Chuck, and welcome.

Here's the problem: not all authors will be as brilliant and talented as Chuck wants them to be. They just don't have the tools in their noggin to produce a work that's up to Chuck's standards. Here's the kicker, they THINK what they wrote was entertaining. What now? Do we stop them and FORCE them to take a class and get an editor? Or, do we let them publish their work and learn the hard way? Because, I don't think there are more than a handful who push the publish button with a smirk on their faces, hoping to hook a sucker on their halfass work. So, your move. What now. What to do with those who think their stuff is no good? Act like the agents who shot down E.L. James and tell them their stuff is no good. Are we appointing someone to do that?

 

[vrabinec]

Cousin Vrabinec,

your post didn't make it past the moderator here.

Folks,

If I have to remove one more post, I'm locking the thread so I can return to my life. Think carefully before you post.

Betsy
KB Mod

Didn't think so. Probably best as a PM anyway. Thank you for saving me from myself. I've cooled off now.

 

[vrabinec]

So Fifty Shades of Grey was hands down one of the best books ever written?

If you're a housewife on the edge with a husband who no longer looks at her THAT WAY because he sneaks down to the computer at night, and you need some excitement in your life, then probably YES. If you're a stuffy critic who thinks there should be a touch of allegory in every book, and for God's sake, some words that you need a thesaurus to come up with, then NO. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[vrabinec]

That statement is a bit disingenuous, isn't it? Weren't you a professional copywriter?

My point is, you've had writing education, either through a formal education system or on the job. And my guess is that in your marketing position, you do a lot of writing as well.

I haven't been a copywriter. I haven't had a writing class since I was a sophomore at Pitt more than 30 years ago. I'm a numbers cruncher at work and write almost nothing in my sales duties. But I think I've got a good story going with my current WIP. It ain't Wool, but I think there will be some people who will think they got their money's worth. Who should I go to for clearance to publish? Who's gonna judge if my book is worthy? I wanna meet them and talk shop.

 

[vrabinec]

I never said you should get clearance from anyone. I completely support everyone's ability to publish whatever they want. But those that give no thought to plot or characterization or grammar shouldn't EXPECT that people will love their work.

Of course not, but that not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the artist in you that has spent over a decade studying the craft who cringes at "I can't afford an editor" "I don't let anyone else read my work" "I've never taken a class or read a book on technique" "Readers are my betas" "I don't think grammar matters" etc.
as though everyone has to be able to afford an editor (see Elle Casey), as though everyone has to let someone see their work before they publish (what if they're a recluse with social anxiety?), as though everyone has to have taken a class or read a book on technique. That's a form of gatekeeping. If their stuff is that bad, they will have spent hours and hours on a book that will COST them money to publish. People like that either get better or give up.

Sure, we'd all love for there to be some set of learning for everyone who publishes to have achieved, but there is no way to come up with one, there is no way to enforce it, so we may as well embrace the system that's out there. Let everyone hit the streets running whenever they're comfortable doing so. And anyone who claims that indie authors are out there saying that it's okay to say "I don't think grammar matters" hasn't read the threads on here, on AW, on critique circle, or Scribophile, etc..We all chant the same mantra. We give newbies the warnings. Go through any newbie thread here. But once someone makes the decision to publish, that's their choice. There's nothing left for us to say. So why come down on indies for cheerleading? It's not like we're silent on these things.

 

[vrabinec]

Chuck,

Everything you said in your follow-up post about readers not making good gatekeepers is addressed by the various vendors (Amazon, iTunes, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, Sonyreader...). They want to keep their customers happy, so they allow returns. They show 10% of books as free samples. They allow Customers to post reviews.

Yeah, money should play no part of this discussion.

 

[vrabinec]

Um... what?

We're talking about PUBLISHING. Money is pretty much by definition a part of that discussion.

Not if the customer can get his money back with the push of a button if he thinks the writing sucks.

 

[vrabinec]

Again, who is talking about policing anybody?

Why does it keep coming back to this point, despite constant statements from me (and Chuck, and others) that nobody is saying that?

But that's the whole point of the original post. Indies are cheerleading and need to stop and give the bad writers an earful so we're not all embarrassed, right?

 

[vrabinec]

I really don't want to get in the middle of this thread, but it just seems amazing to me that people think the customer is the "gatekeeper" of basic quality. If we're talking about subject matter, sure. Some people love books that offend other people, for example, and it's a great thing if they can get what interests them. But if we're talking about baseline structure, grammar, and generic quality assessments, what other business has no quality control whatsoever before the customer gets the product?

If you walked into a supermarket, and some of the food was magnificent and fresh and some of it was putrid and rotten, would you leave with a good impression of that establishment? Would you rate it solely on the quality of the best of its products? If you carelessly bought some of the rotten products, can you honestly say it wouldn't affect your opinion of the store, whether they let you return it or not? Would you have a good reaction to a manager telling you that you had the option to look at everything and choose what to buy? Readers are customers too, and they should be treated as such. They deserve to be treated as such.

It's a great, noble sentiment to assume that everyone will put in the effort to make sure their books meet a minimal base level of basic quality, but it's just not true.

I'll say this to be honest, knowing full well it will send a lot of people to the barn for pitchforks, but I've bought a bunch of self-published books, and some are excellent...but others have an amateurish and poor quality. My general subconscious reaction is to be more careful buying a self-pubbed book, simply because I have bought quite a few that I feel are below professional standards. Yes, I've read others that were great...and lots of trad published books that I didn't end up liking much. I'll say flat out that the best of self-pubbed books are every bit as good as the best of trad pubbed books...possibly even better since there is more freedom on subject matter. But it is equally true that the worst of self-pubbed books are worse than the worst of trad pubbed.

I have many reviews on my own books that say something like, "very clean for a self-published book." That is NOT good for this industry.

I'm not suggesting anything specific, but this whole area is a huge blindspot among people in self-publishing. When a group gets to the point where it can't examine its shortfalls as well as its successes, that is a danger sign. When the first impulse when hearing someone discussing potential problems within an industry is a mob attack that brings the site's moderator on here 3 or 4 times to scold people, that does not bode well for the future.

We are all getting a chance to watch publishers misunderstand change and ignore their own weaknesses. There seems to be an urge to attempt to copy those mistakes on the part of self-publishers.

Merely suggesting that poor quality self-pubbed books can tarnish the entire industry is not an attack on anyone, and certainly not on those who make an effort to produce good work. Beating up on someone for suggesting that this could hurt the industry long term (whether that proves to be right or not) is not productive in any way.

But I haven't read ANY posts on ANY writer site, particularly this one where a single author siad there aren't poor self-published books out there. There's no burying the head in the sand here. And if someone posts a "why am I failing?" Thread, almost invariably, not just the cover and blurb quality is addressed, but the style as well. So why flame indies? Hell, we're more than happy to give suggestions on how to improve. Usually, the OP throws his hands up to stem the tide of critical advice. As a group, we are all about improving the quality, so the "just a bunch of cheerleaders" accusation is wrong. Now had the post been directed at the individual indie author who decides quality doesn't matter, nobody here would've even linked the thing. It's the big umbrella that gets the thing linked. It's the accusation that we indies as a community aren't doing enough. Well, I say this as much as we can do. We give honest critique when asked. We give constant reminders that we all need to be working toward improving. And we provide encouragement when someone thinks they're ready. NOT providing encouragement once someone has made the jump is counterproductive.

 

[vrabinec]

I didn't say no one ever discussed that some indie books need work, but invariably, any suggestion that poor quality works actually affect the market in any way is treated to, at best, outright dismissal and, more likely, a good self-righteous pummeling.

It seem to be self-evident to me that a market is affected by everything in that market. I've seen repeated posts to the effect that poor quality stuff slips so far down no one ever sees it. I'd be more inclined to believe it if I hadn't bought so much stuff myself that was amateurish and poorly written. Certainly, as I stated before, there is a lot of very good stuff as well, but the topic of how poor books affect the market is a serious, credible, and legitimate topic. It's just not one most people want to face. Better to shout down anyone who fails to follow the orthodoxy.

The blog post that started this is not particularly incendiary. I certainly understand agreeing or disagreeing with it, but the fact that it has become a pummeling that has repeatedly brought the moderators here is, to me, a sad indication if where things are going.

The self-publishing industry is certainly catching the conventional publishers in terms of arrogant self-righteousness. Not a source of enormous pride in my book.

Clearly, everything put on the market affects the market. Bad books have an affect. They make readers cautious. Maybe they even make some turn away. So what? What are we supposed to do as an indie community? Start acting like gatekeepers? THAT'S the issue. Because, it obviously hasn't forced all the readers to stop reading self-published stuff. They're still reading it in droves. What are you guys lamenting, that some reader got turned off? Okay, I'll lament that as well. Where do we go from there. None of you are saying we should do anything about it. So, what's the next step? There is none. We keep calling fro everyone to put their best foot forward, and there will continue to be people who ignore that advice. That's not being arrogant, that's being realistic.

And as for the deleted posts, I plead the fifth. Anyway, I like to think of KB as "grizzled". One of the things you'll find here is strong-willed people. Hoooray.

 

[vrabinec]

No, it's even worse. You've got people in this thread whose response to a general call for increased quality is, and I'm quoting directly here: "I celebrate mediocrity. I celebrate half-assing things. 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 a large percentage of folks here don't seem to see that as a problem, which, frankly, is astounding.

Maybe we're all afraid to throw stones in glass houses. Maybe we're too timid to point out the problems in someone else's work (no comments here, Betsy, please ) You know, telling someone their stuff isn't very good unsolicited, opens one up to critique of their own work. You go right ahead and feel free to tell authors their stuff needs work.

 

[vrabinec]

No, it's even worse. You've got people in this thread whose response to a general call for increased quality is, and I'm quoting directly here: "I celebrate mediocrity. I celebrate half-assing things. 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 a large percentage of folks here don't seem to see that as a problem, which, frankly, is astounding.

p.s. Just to be clear, I celebrate it too, and I'll tell you why. Because I don't know what's going on in the life of the person who's writing the mediocre book. Maybe it's a mom with four kids who needs a couple extra bucks to pay the heating bill. She doesn't have time to go to the library and brush up on her "writing technique", she doesn't have the money for a new cover other than what she can create which is mediocre, no money for editing. Maybe she fails, but then maybe she makes a couple extra bucks, and who am I to say that some reader out there isn't touched about the semi-autobiographical book she produced and is selling that YOU would tell her to go back and edit and edit and edit until it's right. I don't know what will appeal to readers. I'm not enough of an expert to determine that. Nobody I know is. So, I applaud the author's right to sell the mediocre book.

Now, explain to me why I should side with you. Because it might cut into YOUR profits if someone reads the book and doesn't like it? Why chose YOUR profits over HER profits?

 

[vrabinec]

This thread does more to prove the points Chuck made than anything he could have said. The astonishing bias and mob mentality is extremely obvious to anyone not part of the mob.

What you call a mob, I call an opposing side to your arguments. Besides, this is the best thread we've had in a while. Good debate.

You want proof, yet you offer absolutely none in your own condemnation of someone else's assertions.

You ignore the common sense that negative experiences discourage repetition of the action that caused them. A reader buys a self-pubbed book full of typos and errors, and he or she is less likely to buy another. Not certain not to buy another, but statistically speaking, a bad experience does not increase someone's willingness to repeat the action.

That's not being ignored. It's conceded that there will be readers who don't like a book you consider sub-par and will be less likely to buy an indie book because of it. But there may also be readers who LIKE that very same book, and YOU want to deprive THOSE readers or reading, and to deprive the author of publishing it. Like I said in a post above, you don't know the circumstances of the author. It maybe be that the author will never have the finances to edit a book to your satisfaction. But maybe she can make a few bucks to pay the heating bill. What are you gonna do, shame her into not publishing her book until she can edit the thing properly? Convince me to convince her. Give me the words I should use.

You want an author who will say he/she doesn't care about readers? Do you really expect a writer to say that? Frankly, every post on here excusing or ridiculing the reader experience in buying a poor quality book suggests a lack of care.

Really? You think those of us defending the right of the author to publish the book they think is ready don't care about readers? Does that mean you don't care about authors? Can't it be that we both care about readers and we both care about authors, but we disagree on whether or not it's our right to convince authors not to publish their work because it's inferior by our arbitrary standards?

The fact that a "culture" exists is fairly well evidenced herein by the orthodoxy on display. You repeatedly ask for rigid proof of any opinion differing from you own while offering none whatsoever to defend your own. This, "I am assumed correct unless categorically proven wrong" attitude speaks for itself.

Nope, this is an argument of logic and rights. I'll ask you, what right do you have to tell another author their work is inferior?

 

[vrabinec]

Are you honestly saying that readers should endure substandard books because the authors' lives *might* be difficult? As if that excused unprofessional behavior and foisting off bad art on people?

Who's foisting? The reader doesn't have his arm twisted. They're free to reject the book. And are you honestly saying that you or someone else has the right to say what standards should be met before a book is allowed to be put up for sale? I'm saying I don't know that author's condition, I don't know that author's abilities, but I do know the author's rights. The reader has rights, too. He has the right to buy the book or pass, and if he doesn't like the book he has the right to get his money back. That's not an inequitable setup.

Are you honestly saying subpar books are satisfactory because you hypothesize there *might* be readers out there who enjoy reading them?

Sure, just like you're hypothesizing that readers will come away from something that your utopian indie community considers poorly written like, oh, say, 50 Shades, and never buy another indie book again. Neither one of us knows whether the reader will like the book or not. And none of us is up to going through them to determine which one is "good" even if we could come up with some agreed upon standards, which we never will, so this whole argument is silly. I mean, really, how many of the people on this site have RIPPED 50 Shades? It's countless. By their standards, it's subpar. The readers made a different call. Yeah, they also make the call on a TON of books that get rejected. But they should have the right to make that call, not any of us.

I cannot believe that you are actually claiming that authors who espouse professionalism are snatching bread from the mouths of a mythical poverty-stricken mother and her four mythical children.

Never said that. Espouse away. I sure as hell do. Feel free to go through my posts and see how often. But I'm not going to castigate some author who puts out an "inferior" product. Know why? I may be wrong. The author thought it was good enough, again, who are YOU and who an I to say otherwise? What right grants us that? What right do we have to make the call for the reader and the author what's good or bad? None. Sure, every indie wishes every other indie's books were good enough to keep the readers reading indie books, but not so good that they make the author's own books look bad in comparison and therefore cost them sales. But it's ridiculous to try to sort it out. All we can do is tell people to write as well as they can get a professional cover if they can, get editing if they can. But if they can't? More power to them.

 

[vrabinec]

No, they shouldn't. Ever. Under any circumstances.

Come on. You guys make it sound like we're chaining the reader to the desk and making them read the thing. There's free will at work here. Has anyone said readers should be forced to read these books? Nobody. I do however think they should have the option of reading them. They also have the option of rejecting them. And, again, whose standards will we use here. Yours? What are your standards? Typos? I find typos in all kinds of books. What else ya got?

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's a profession that should be treated as such if you're going to ask consumers to pay for your work.

And by treating it as such, you're suggesting that there needs to be some criteria that has to be met. Who decides that criteria? Are we gonna gather some elders in the indie community and come up with some defined set of prerequisites that authors have to meet before they are allowed to publish? Sounds familiar.

Look everyone - here IS a reader who has continually pointed out that comments in this thread say to her that some writers don't care about readers. Is anyone going to listen to the READER? Or are you only going to continue to argue with other writers? Do you think she's the only one with this opinion in a sea of millions?

I'm a reader. See any books in my sig that I'm selling. Why are you arguing with me?

 

[vrabinec]

Plumbers who do not know how to fix sinks do not expect to be paid by people to learn on the job. Nor do airline pilots or police officers or teachers. They all pay to learn at academies and schools or are apprenticed, usually at low or no wages. They are not paid for learning their crafts, except in good wages once they have mastered them.

And so the writers who are learning will earn low or no wages. Sounds like you're making the other argument here.

Lets' turn the tables, how would you feel if there were criteria put in place before an author could earn, and you didn't qualify?

 

[vrabinec]

Yes, there is criteria to be met if one wants to call themselves a professional. Education and experience in one's job is usually required to be competent at anything but the most basic of jobs.

And sometimes there are naturals. What do you do with them? If you wonder why I'm fighting so hard here, it's because I don't have the education, and I don't have the experience. Yet I think I can write a good book. Now, somebody's gonna have to explain to me why I shouldn't publish this book until I have some courses under my belt.

YOU decide that criteria, along with your support staff. Beta readers, other writers, editors, etc. should ALL be contributing to the determination of whether your product is ready for publication.

How do you know your Beta readers know what they're talking about and aren't leading you astray? How do you know other authors aren't as clever as you or as ingenious as you and aren't leading you astray? You go with your gut. People go with their gut all the time, thinking their work is gonna sell, and it doesn't. That's inherent here. I will beg writers to be as good as they can be, but I'll never rip them for publishing something they thought was ready, that didn't turn out to be, because that could be me.

The bottom line is that the only person authors hurt by putting out subpar products is themselves. Readers will write them off and never buy from them again. I don't have a dog in this hunt. People's lack of professionalism doesn't effect my readership in the least. But if people expect to make a career out of something, then they should respect the job enough to do it well. Is that really such an awful thing?

A moment ago you were lamenting the poor reader who had to endure the atrocious writing, now you're saying the only person the author hurts is himself. Which is it? Everyone is affected. But we're talking about rights here. The right of the author to publish what he thinks will or MIGHT sell, because I really can't say with any degree of certainty that mine will sell a single copy. And the right of the reader to decide whether or not the thing is good enough to shell over the $.99