# Missed Opportunities for Self-Publishers?



## Philip Overby

I've mentioned this elsewhere on the forum and some other places, but I felt like it deserves its own thread. I've been thinking a lot about my approach to fantasy as of late and an interest to write the kind of fantasy that may not be as easy to find. While I enjoy epic fantasy a great deal, I feel like there is already a lot of it out there in the world, both from traditional and self-publishers. I would imagine that some people who chose to self-publish may do so because they want to write more daring novels that mainstream publishers won't touch. Instead I see most people that self-publish do so for the quick turnaround and the ability to mold their own career without input from editors. While I think these are good reasons as well, I wonder if there is a missed opportunity to really reinvent the fantasy genre or at least reinvent what a self-published fantasy author might offer. 

This is no way a bash against people that write epic fantasy. Some of my favorite authors write it. But within the idea of fantasy there are so many more possibilities. I think if mainstream fantasy publishers dictate that epic fantasy is the "it" genre, couldn't self-published fantasy authors offer more alternatives? 

Hell, maybe I just don't know enough about what's going on in the self-publishing realm as I'm a neophyte when it comes to such topics. Maybe these things are already happening. I just wonder if there is a missed opportunity to truly distinguish traditional and self-published fantasy.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

I agree. One of the things that indie publishing does allow for is the expression of completely new plots and world builds etc. It allows for envelopes to be pushed in unexpected directions, and love it or hate it Fifty Shades is an example of this.

Unfortunately while indies are likely to publish more daring, non formulaic novels than the trade publishe, that doesn't mean that either the publishing world is able to cater for these works or readers are ready to read them. As an example I have one book that is cross genre, bluring the line between science fiction and fantasy (basically elves in sci fi) and it sells poorly compared to my traditional epic fantasies. I have another sci fi with probably the most unusual plot ever seen and sales are dismal at best.

Basically the established tropes do best until something breaks out.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Philip Overby

I do think daring to try different things is worth doing if it's where your mind is at the time. Anything that is on the fringe is going to most likely sell less until, like you said, something breaks out. While I do think traditional fantasy will continue to sell the best, is it worth the risk to invest time into writing weirder fiction that may or may not find an audience? I'd say yes. As you said, 50 Shades was risky, but obvious pushing that envelope paid off in a big way. 

I just wonder what kind of amazing fiction that may be possible to achieve with no restraints from a publisher saying "that won't sell" or whatever.


----------



## ACSmyth

I think it may come soon. Self-publishing is still quite new, and people are building their "platforms" and getting a bit of a backlist. It's hard enough to get people to buy familiar things that are self-published, at the moment, but I'd certainly like to play with genres at some point.


----------



## Mythopoet

I would assume that what "most" self publishers are writing is whatever pleases them. In other words, whatever they would want to read themselves. Which is just as it should be. 

Now, if what you would want to read is something that will defy conventions and explore new territory then go write it and publish it and more power to you. Write what pleases you. But I don't see why all or most or even a significant portion of authors _should_ be concerned with such things. I think the only thing all writers _should_ be concerned with is telling a good story.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm not suggesting everyone write stories to please me. I'm suggesting that it may be a missed opportunity to distinguish mainstream publishing from self-publishers. I mean if umpteen self-publishers are all writing epic fantasy, then what is the alternative? 

And of course the goal is to the write a good story regardless. That's a given. However, is telling the same good stories over and over again the best option for a section of writers trying to make their names seen and heard? I say write whatever you want, but are you missing a chance to push the envelope and tell new kinds of stories that haven't been told in fantasy before?

I mean, why does epic fantasy have to be the default? Again, I'm not railing against epic fantasy, I do like it myself, but I myself am a reader _and_ a writer. Meaning I don't want to write every single kind of thing I want to read. No matter how hard I try, I can't replicate what China Mieville, Chuck Wendig, and others do. And I'm glad they push the boundaries so I have alternatives to read other things than just epic fantasy. Every writer has their own way of telling stories and I'd love to just see a broader range. Self-publishers have the perfect opportunity to bust the genre wide open if they care to.


----------



## Chessie

Phil, I totally see your point and I like it though I admit to not being a fan of epic fantasy. I've read it and enjoyed very little but I think that's due to my attention span as a reader. I don't write epic fantasy and I intend to self-publish. Indie books are my favorite because I love their rawness. I haven't read any self pubbed epics although I don't know how many of them exist out there. Most of what I have read has been outside the norm. And although I see where you're going with this, I don't think the responsibility should fall mostly on independent authors. I think it would be great to see traditional ones break through the mold as well. It seems like epic fantasy is a rite of passage in fantasy genre. It would be nice to see a greater variety in it.

Quick note: one of my favorite recently read fantasy tales is traditionally published. "The Violin Maker's Wife", a novelette. The magic in the story is supernatural, which added a nice variety. I know this thread is related to Indie work, of which there is some interesting fantasy out there. You're best served being selective though.


----------



## Mythopoet

Here's the thing (well, one of the things): why _are_ you singling out epic fantasy? It's not as if all epic fantasy is the same. It's not as if the subgenre isn't full of fantastically creative material. It's not as if epic fantasy can't expand its own boundaries. Fantasy is a genre so full of potential that most likely its borders will _never_ be discovered. One could argue they don't exist. But your posts make it sound like epic fantasy has exhausted itself when that's simple an unfounded assumption.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil,

As I understand it, your suggestion is that it may be easier for a self pubber to gain success by writing something outside the norm.  If I've interpreted you correctly, let's think about that:

Epic fantasy has a sizeable and known audience.
Niche fantasy's audience is, presumably, smaller and less-well defined as far as demographics/characteristics go.

Is it better to go after a small part of a large audience or a huge part of a small audience?  Good question.  Wish I knew.

From a marketing standpoint, it seems like writing epic offers a clear advantage.  Who is my audience?  People who like (fill in the blank).  Seems to me like knowing the audience is the first step to good marketing.



> I just wonder if there is a missed opportunity to truly distinguish traditional and self-published fantasy.



From this statement, perhaps I've misinterpreted your thesis?  Are you advocating your suggestion from the standpoint of enhanced ability to succeed or because you feel self pubbers need to distinguish themselves?

If the latter, I question the need.  Readers don't care one way or another if you're traditionally published or indie.  All they care about is if you're delivering quality at your price point.  In my mind, the main failing of self publishing is that few indie authors are delivering any kind of value because their quality is too low to be considered at any price point.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> In my mind, the main failing of self publishing is that few indie authors are delivering any kind of value because their quality is too low to be considered at any price point.



Well, this is just false. Hundreds of Indie authors are doing very well precisely because they are offering good quality work.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet said:


> Well, this is just false. Hundreds of Indie authors are doing very well precisely because they are offering good quality work.



I'm having a hard, hard time finding them.

Maybe I'm too picky, but there seems to me to be a huge quality difference.  For example, I just read Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence.  I didn't particularly enjoy it, but that's because the story was darker than I prefer.  I didn't have many complaints about the writing or how he told the story, just the story he chose to tell.

In contrast, I've been asking on several forums including Goodreads for recommendations for good, well-written indie fantasy.  Each one I've read has had major flaws in the quality of the writing.  Major flaws.


----------



## Svrtnsse

If cost was a concern to me and I was looking for a series of epic fantasy to sink my teeth into I imagine I would almost certainly be going for a well known name from a traditional publisher. Reading a trilogy (of trilogies) takes time and it's something of a commitment to get into. 
To me, and probably to a lot of others, traditional publishing is something of a stamp of approval. Someone has read this and found that it's good enough that they're willing to invest their own money into promoting and selling it - that's gotta count for something, right?
I'll still check reviews and reader feedback, but I think I'd be more likely to start looking among traditionally published works.

If however, I'm just looking for something new and interesting to while away a weekend on the sofa, I don't think I would have any qualms about looking at self published works. A shorter, stand-alone book is less of a time-investment. It's probably cheaper as well and it doesn't matter as much if it's not as good. I'd be more willing to take some risks if that was my goal.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm having a hard, hard time finding them.



Well, your personal standards don't enter into it. You cannot deny the fact that there are hundreds of thousands, nay millions, of readers out there who _are_ buying self-published books and are perfectly happy with them. There are hundreds of Indie authors building robust fan bases on the foundation of their storytelling skills. Just because you haven't found one that you like doesn't mean this isn't so. Personally, I have yet to try one that I liked as well. But I know that I have really high standards and contemporary writers in general are very unlikely to please me as a reader. My personal preferences don't make any difference to the success and popularity of those authors and neither do yours.


----------



## buyjupiter

The Indie Eclective are doing exactly what you're asking about Phil. They self-publish weirder fantasy/horror/new weird/queer stories. It's a group of writers that help each other out with marketing by cross-posting to each other's platforms about their works and shares the marketing work. They have a few short story collections out on Amazon right now and as soon as I get some spending money again, I know I want to buy some of their novels.

Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/HALLOWEEN-COLLECTION-FROM-INDIE-ECLECTIVE-ebook/dp/B005LPGG0C

For those of us who do write odder short fictions (Phil, Guru Coyote, myself, Feo(?), whoever else I'm forgetting): would there be any interest in gathering a collection of short stories together, doing a group critique of them to get them publication-ready, etc. and then putting them out there? Each of the contributors would be able to link to their own already published works/blog/twitter/facebook/whatever so that they could get new readers in. I think even if they were offered for free (which some of us have already discussed doing for our short stories already), it would definitely get the word out about who we are and what we do.

I know of a couple of other people who do this kind of thing, but they tend to be husband-wife teams and from Australia. (Which makes me wonder if my new marketing strategy should be to move to Australia?)


----------



## Philip Overby

> From this statement, perhaps I've misinterpreted your thesis? Are you advocating your suggestion from the standpoint of enhanced ability to succeed or because you feel self pubbers need to distinguish themselves?



My point has more to do with indie writers distinguishing themselves from traditional publishers. At least in the fantasy realm, there's a chance to do so I believe. For example, if I'm looking for the next, best epic fantasy, I'm not going to lie, I'm going to look at traditional publishing. That doesn't mean I won't give an epic fantasy by a self-publisher a chance, it just means I'm not looking for epic fantasy there myself. When I look for indie writers, I look for writing I'm not going to find at major publishers. Does that make sense?

If everything sort of blends together, I guess that's good? I just think it's a missed opportunity for a group of indie authors to make names for themselves by offering fantasy books that would be nigh impossible to find from traditionally publishers. I think everyone is out to make millions of dollars at writing when there is a chance to corner a certain niche of the market. For me epic fantasy just represents the default. Default isn't bad, but just seems like indie writers could be doing more to say, "Look at us!"



> Here's the thing (well, one of the things): why are you singling out epic fantasy? It's not as if all epic fantasy is the same. It's not as if the subgenre isn't full of fantastically creative material. It's not as if epic fantasy can't expand its own boundaries. *Fantasy is a genre so full of potential that most likely its borders will never be discovered.* One could argue they don't exist. But your posts make it sound like epic fantasy has exhausted itself when that's simple an unfounded assumption.



The bold part is the most important part of your statement. Fantasy is full of potential, but why the default of epic fantasy every time? It's like if you read horror books and they were all about ghosts. Sure, one epic fantasy may stand out from another, but it just seems like there are other ways to tell fantasy stories. You made my point for me.

I don't think epic fantasy has exhausted itself. Of course there are limitless possibilities. I just wonder why it's become the default for _everyone,_ even myself. I just think of traditionally published authors writing a lot of epic fantasy, you have to imagine there are readers out there thinking that indie writers have a chance to crack the genre open and try to explore all the limitless possibilities. 



> For those of us who do write odder short fictions (Phil, Guru Coyote, myself, Feo(?), whoever else I'm forgetting): would there be any interest in gathering a collection of short stories together, doing a group critique of them to get them publication-ready, etc. and then putting them out there? Each of the contributors would be able to link to their own already published works/blog/twitter/facebook/whatever so that they could get new readers in. I think even if they were offered for free (which some of us have already discussed doing for our short stories already), it would definitely get the word out about who we are and what we do.



I find I don't tend to work well in collabs for reasons I'll tell you if you want to discuss it. 

However, I think this is a good idea and I'd be willing to mull it over if other people got on board. I'm not very keen on giving things away for free because I see the reaction those get in some circles, but if I think it could work, I'd be willing to give it a try.


----------



## buyjupiter

Phil the Drill said:


> I find I don't tend to work well in collabs for reasons I'll tell you if you want to discuss it.
> 
> However, I think this is a good idea and I'd be willing to mull it over if other people got on board. I'm not very keen on giving things away for free because I see the reaction those get in some circles, but if I think it could work, I'd be willing to give it a try.



I'm just throwing out how I saw the writers in the Indie Eclective do it. Not that it's the best way, nor the only way of doing collabs, just how it's worked for them.

The reason I suggest free is it would kill a lot of the argument about how to split royalties more than two ways. I could imagine a lot of angst about one person saying they had to pay for the cover design and another that paid for an editing service, and one person used a song lyric and had to pay royalties for that use, etc etc.

It would definitely be difficult to do, as we all have very different styles, but I think that could work in a group's favor. If, for example, you, me, and whoever else all had stories that were different from each other but similar in that they were about ordinary heroes, you might gain a reader who didn't like my story but loved yours or vice versa. I know short story collections don't do well historically, but I think the difference of authorship might help boost the signal (as it were). I've skipped over short story collections by one unknown author because I don't know if I'll like the style. If I see a group of short stories by a whole bunch of different authors, I'm more likely to pick it up as I think (rightly or wrongly) that quantity means I'll like something in the collection. (This is how I discovered Charlaine Harris and Sookie.)

One of the things that I love about what I've been seeing spec fic writers do lately is help another writer with exposure/marketing. If I like seeing that, and it makes me want to buy more stuff that I'd never have found otherwise, how many other people like that same kind of altruism and think it's worthwhile to support that kind of effort?

Speaking for myself, I am not ready with enough pieces to really contribute anything to a collection at this point in time. However, I would like to have stuff out in the market on Amazon and through Smashwords within the next six months...so if it takes time to get a group together, that's cool.


----------



## Philip Overby

Yeah, I'm open to things such as this, but I tend to want to try things on my own first to see how things pan out. I'd like to keep this in mind for the future as I do think this could be a way to unite certain writers under a "cause" or "movement" like New Weird has done. I think that is a good way to discover other writers who are aiming for a certain aesthetic. Because epic fantasy is so broad a category, it may be harder to do something like this.

I don't necessarily think free is the wrong way to go, I just think it might need to be considered how it work to everyone's advantage from a promotional standpoint.


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> In my mind, the main failing of self publishing is that few indie authors are delivering any kind of value because their quality is too low to be considered at any price point.



Not to stray too far off topic (or be a jerk), but I have been seeing this line of thought all over the place. As a reader of mostly Indie books, I have yet to come across a total pile of doo story. Its all about being selective. Its disappointing to see such poor faith in self-publishers as opposed to support. I don't understand why the popular view is that most Indie books suck. Just my take, but if anyone is interested in self publishing someday, why not start viewing the whole thing from a more respectful light?


----------



## Philip Overby

Chesterama said:


> Not to stray too far off topic (or be a jerk), but I have been seeing this line of thought all over the place. As a reader of mostly Indie books, I have yet to come across a total pile of doo story. Its all about being selective. Its disappointing to see such poor faith in self-publishers as opposed to support. I don't understand why the popular view is that most Indie books suck. Just my take, but if anyone is interested in self publishing someday, why not start viewing the whole thing from a more respectful light?



I agree with your points, Chesterama. I tend to be pretty selective in general regardless of how a book is published. I try not to take this idea that all indie writing is poorly written, but it is a widely held belief for some reason. I'm not sure I buy into this completely as the handful of indie writers I've read I have mostly enjoyed. If I didn't enjoy their work, I just passed on it without another word. I'm of the opinion if I ever end up being a self-published writer, I don't want people prejudging me just because I'm self-published. I've grown to be a bit more respectful of the whole publishing process and I understand even if the writing isn't up to my standards, someone most likely put a lot of work into what they're putting out there.


----------



## Graylorne

There are plenty authors who choose for self-publishing, not because they couldn't sell their books to a trad, publisher, but because they don't want to. It's not the last resort of the desperate, it's a challenge. A freedom. That's why more and more trad. published authors of name go the self-publishing route as well as the trad. paths.

I've found a lot of fantasy books that are enjoyable, and many that are not. Both self-published and trad.


----------



## Philip Overby

This may be well-timed for this discussion which has sort of evolved into the quality of indie publishing in general. It's got some bad language but some good points for those who seek out self-published material.

http://www.deadpixelpublications.com/1/post/2014/01/how-to-be-a-better-self-published-reader.html?fb_action_ids=10151977791321961&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[667708443279526]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]


----------



## C Hollis

I agree that there is a great opportunity here to push the boundaries, but you have to keep in mind that the indie faces many of the same hurdles as a traditionally published writer.  A writer (trad or indie) needs to build a fan base with "traditional" writings if they want that groundbreaking story to reach an audience anytime soon.
Certainly, one could start off writing off the beaten path, but it would take much longer to make a splash.  For the most part, people don't have the patience to grind it out till luck hits and that special someone "discovers" that book.  Most indies give it all up after a couple books when sales don't meet unrealistic expectations.
And where do you list it?  What section of the bookstore does it go on display?  Fiction>Fantasy>Epic>Weird?  If you are established, well, it goes with your other books, but there are few "established" indies.

Actually, the more I ramble nonsensically about this topic, one thing comes to mind:  I would argue these books do exist, they are just hidden under the blanket of obscurity.


----------



## Graylorne

Very timely indeed 

And obviously I agree with the article.


----------



## C Hollis

> Let's not throw it all away because we can't stretch out of our comfort zone. Besides, todays industry standard is tomorrow's archaic nonsense.



^this

Gah.  There was something else that grabbed my attention but can't find it.  Good article.


----------



## Mythopoet

Phil the Drill said:


> My point has more to do with indie writers distinguishing themselves from traditional publishers. At least in the fantasy realm, there's a chance to do so I believe. For example, if I'm looking for the next, best epic fantasy, I'm not going to lie, I'm going to look at traditional publishing. That doesn't mean I won't give an epic fantasy by a self-publisher a chance, it just means I'm not looking for epic fantasy there myself. When I look for indie writers, I look for writing I'm not going to find at major publishers. Does that make sense?
> 
> If everything sort of blends together, I guess that's good? I just think it's a missed opportunity for a group of indie authors to make names for themselves by offering fantasy books that would be nigh impossible to find from traditionally publishers. I think everyone is out to make millions of dollars at writing when there is a chance to corner a certain niche of the market. For me epic fantasy just represents the default. Default isn't bad, but just seems like indie writers could be doing more to say, "Look at us!"



Indie writers don't need to distinguish themselves from traditional publishers. Most readers don't care and don't even notice who publishes a book. Indie writers, like all writers no matter how they publish, only need to distinguish themselves. And by that I mean every author is their own brand and their work is their brand. And if it's good no one cares how it's published, except people steeped in the "traditional publishing means quality" myth. 



Phil the Drill said:


> The bold part is the most important part of your statement. Fantasy is full of potential, but why the default of epic fantasy every time? It's like if you read horror books and they were all about ghosts. Sure, one epic fantasy may stand out from another, but it just seems like there are other ways to tell fantasy stories. You made my point for me.



Not all authors write a "default epic fantasy" every time. That's just such a sweeping generalization. There are writers everywhere writing all sorts of work. And what the heck is the "default" epic fantasy anyway? No offense, but I'm guessing it's probably whatever you personally happen to be tired of at the moment. 

Perhaps I'm being too argumentative but I'm getting a definite "writers should write what I think would be good for them to write" vibe from your post and indie writers are already sick and tired of that attitude from traditional publishers. I'm sick and tired of that attitude. Self-publishing is the perfect opportunity for writers to finally be able to write whatever they _want_ to write instead of what other people tell them to write and that's as it should be. There will no doubt be lots of writers who write more traditional stories and as long as they're good stories and readers like them, who cares? There will also be plenty of writers who write new, quirky, bold and experimental things and as long as they're good stories and readers like them, good for them. 

But let's all stop telling writers what's good for them and let them do their own thing, ok?


----------



## Philip Overby

Sounds like you're reading past what I'm saying. Where did I tell authors they should do a certain thing? I'm just suggesting ways that might be possible. You're putting words in my mouth. I don't believe what I'm saying is a negative thing, it's just food for thought. You're taking it to be negative because you're viewing me as someone making sweeping generalizations when I'm not. 

I've already said:

a. I read epic fantasy.
b. I write epic fantasy.
c. Would it be nice if indie writers tried different kinds of fantasy instead of just following what traditional publishers are already doing? Where did I say "write what I want!"?

Nowhere have I said epic fantasy is bad. Not once. I didn't create this thread for people to argue with me about how I'm outmoded in my way of thoughts or something. If anything, I'm just trying to suggest ways for writers to delve further into the genre. Indie writers are in a unique position is all I'm saying. They could change the way everyone reads fantasy. While I don't want the next great epic fantasy to go unwritten, I also want the next great other kinds of fantasy to BE written.

Default isn't necessarily a bad word, by the way.

So yeah, my attitude is not what you think it is. I just think you're ignoring the root of what I'm suggesting (key word _suggesting_) in order to make some kind of argument against me of "writers should do what they want." Yeah, I agree. I'm just thinking, it could be nice if some indie authors tried to bring newer and newer ideas to the table.



> I agree that there is a great opportunity here to push the boundaries, but you have to keep in mind that the indie faces many of the same hurdles as a traditionally published writer. A writer (trad or indie) needs to build a fan base with "traditional" writings if they want that groundbreaking story to reach an audience anytime soon.
> Certainly, one could start off writing off the beaten path, but it would take much longer to make a splash. For the most part, people don't have the patience to grind it out till luck hits and that special someone "discovers" that book. Most indies give it all up after a couple books when sales don't meet unrealistic expectations.
> And where do you list it? What section of the bookstore does it go on display? Fiction>Fantasy>Epic>Weird? If you are established, well, it goes with your other books, but there are few "established" indies.
> 
> Actually, the more I ramble nonsensically about this topic, one thing comes to mind: I would argue these books do exist, they are just hidden under the blanket of obscurity.



This is the best argument I've seen so far and makes a lot of sense. Maybe someone has mentioned this, but I missed it. Also psychotick's points about his epic fantasy doing better than his "weirder" fiction is telling. 

I do think buyjupiter's thoughts about making a group of indie writers who sort of write similar kinds of fantasy fiction could be a way that smaller movements or pockets of different kinds of indie writers could stick together. I'm not sure one single author could break the genre open, but I suppose it's possible.

I recently read an article about how the movie Her might single-handedly change the SF genre. It was pretty interesting to read. It was saying how every SF doesn't have to have action or angry robots or anything. While I do like varied forms of fiction, all I'm hoping for is people to spread their wings a bit more and be riskier. 

If people are getting the sense that I'm saying, "indie writers must change because I want them to" then I think you're getting the wrong idea. I just think there is an opportunity that may be wasted here is all.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet,



> There are hundreds of Indie authors building robust fan bases on the foundation of their storytelling skills.



I didn't say that there weren't any out there.  I said that there were few, and I make that statement based on, from my experience, the percentage of ones doing a good job versus the ones who produce complete crap.

I'd say that I only purchase maybe 1 in 25 of every indie book I look at and that the primary drive behind the decision not to buy is my perception of the quality.  Of the ones I buy, somewhere between 1 in 5 and 1 and 10 would I judge to be "good."



> My personal preferences don't make any difference to the success and popularity of those authors and neither do yours.



When you say the words "self published" does it conjure the image of quality in the minds of the reading public?

I think the answer to that is definitely, "No!"

One reason for the perception that self published = low quality is because the vast majority of people self publishing are putting out low quality work.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chesterama said:


> Not to stray too far off topic (or be a jerk), but I have been seeing this line of thought all over the place. As a reader of mostly Indie books, I have yet to come across a total pile of doo story. Its all about being selective. Its disappointing to see such poor faith in self-publishers as opposed to support. I don't understand why the popular view is that most Indie books suck. Just my take, but if anyone is interested in self publishing someday, why not start viewing the whole thing from a more respectful light?



I'll grant that my standards as to what constitutes "good" tend to be higher than most readers.  Fact is, I find certain writing traits highly annoying, and, if a book contains such traits and those aren't overwhelmed by positive factors, I'm quick to call the writing poor. 

In defense of my viewpoint, however, I simply don't find those "poor" writing traits present when I read traditionally published material.

Again, even when getting recommendations for the "best" indie books, I'm finding what I consider to be poor quality.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil the Drill said:


> This may be well-timed for this discussion which has sort of evolved into the quality of indie publishing in general. It's got some bad language but some good points for those who seek out self-published material.
> 
> http://www.deadpixelpublications.com/1/post/2014/01/how-to-be-a-better-self-published-reader.html?fb_action_ids=10151977791321961&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[667708443279526]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]



Phil,

I gotta say that I disagree pretty strongly with the guy's last point.

I can see this happening a lot: author who hasn't spent nearly long enough developing his craft puts out book.  The response of the world is mostly crickets.  The author's reaction is, "Why didn't people buy my book."

How is that person ever going to improve if no one ever tells him what he did wrong?


----------



## Philip Overby

BW,

I don't think he's saying "don't criticize people," he's just saying try to be more constructive when you can. Everyone's a critic nowadays and everyone has different tastes. I think it's safe to say that technical aspects bother you more than they do me or maybe some others on this site. And that's fine if that's your expectation. My interest in certain aesthetics is obviously different as well. I enjoy darker fantasy, you don't. So my impression is that we have different tastes and that's cool. So for me, if you say, "This writing is boring and I don't like it," I can't really say I should follow your opinion because you have wildly different tastes than me. I think that's also something we can learn about self-publishers in general. What one person may think is disorganized, badly written crap, may be something that has a lot of potential and is still entertaining for another person. 

I do believe that every voice is helpful to get writers to think more about what they're putting out there, but sometimes the negative voice is going to drown out the more constructive, helpful ones. Just something I always keep in mind. 

I think the point he's trying to make is there are more tactful ways to help someone improve.


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> I'll grant that my standards as to what constitutes "good" tend to be higher than most readers.



Whoa, ok. So the rest of us can't distinguish good literature from crap? What about people just liking what they like? Why does that have anything to do with a book's quality? Look, so you have a harsher opinion on this topic. Fine. But no need to be disrespectful about it. We're all in the same boat here trying to sell books. One of my bffs is a fantasy artist. She's been at this for years and is now doing good for herself after much persistence and hard work. I have never heard her say anything negative about the other artists who share the gallery spotlight with her. She's respectful and friendly. That's how I think our writing community would be best served. The negativity surrounding this topic lately is disappointing. How about being professional? Who is going to buy our books if we're jerks? I'm done ranting now.


----------



## Philip Overby

I do think a more supportive approach to writers just starting out is better than a "you're doing it wrong" approach. I hope that's not what people are getting from my OP. This topic wasn't supposed to be about the quality of self-published books, but more about what self-publishers could do to organize themselves to stand out amongst a crowded market. I just feel that if everyone is writing epic fantasy stories, it may be harder to find those diamonds in the rough. Chuck Wendig's approach to fantasy where he wrote what he called "cornpunk" (a kind of tongue-in-cheek description I think) got me interested in his book. I don't think it was self-published, but he does follow a more hybrid approach. I'm just curious why more writers don't try riskier ventures when it comes to fantasy when there are such limitless possibilities. 

Again, I'm not saying people should stop writing epic fantasy. Please, keep writing it, but there might be other avenues the market is missing out is all.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Whoa, ok. So the rest of us can't distinguish good literature from crap? What about people just liking what they like? Why does that have anything to do with a book's quality?



Let's imagine the average reader and I both draw lines and say, "A book has to have meet this level of quality to be considered good."  If fewer books meet the required criteria for my line than the average reader's line, I'd consider my standards to be higher.

The way I'm reading your post, you seem to take offense at this concept.  It is not meant to be disrespectful; it's simply a statement that my tendency is to consider a smaller quantity of books to be good quality than the average reader does.

I really don't get how that is disrespectful or offensive.



> She's respectful and friendly. That's how I think our writing community would be best served. The negativity surrounding this topic lately is disappointing. How about being professional? Who is going to buy our books if we're jerks?



When I started writing, I thought that I did a pretty good job.  Until I got feedback.

I discovered what I had been producing was complete crap, and, you know what, if they hadn't have told me that I was producing complete crap, I'd still be doing it.  If I think writing is substandard, is it better to:

a) remain silent
b) lie
c) tell the truth

I get that some people out there prefer a or b.  As for me and a lot of others, I'd rather know.


----------



## Mythopoet

I think the point, BWFoster, is that you are making an absolute value judgement about books. You are saying certain books ARE crap. But quality in literature is subjective. One person's crap is another person's treasure. Millions of people love Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey. Enough people to make those book runaway bestsellers. To huge numbers of other people those books are crap. Which people are right? Both and neither. Because the fact of the matter is that books can't be judged like that. You can't make absolute declarations about their quality. (Unless you're that arrogant.) The best you can truthfully say is "_*I*_ dislike this book for reasons a, b and c..." 

But your assessment of a book or my assessment of a book is insignificant and should have no bearing on whether or not that book is published. Publishing companies are allowed to make such judgements about what should be published because they are investing lots of money in the publication. But when the author is the publisher and the only one investing in the publication, no one has the right to tell him or her whether the book should be published. It's between the author and the readers to determine how well the book will succeed. The author puts in the work and the readers decide whether or not to buy, simple as that. 



Phil the Drill said:


> I'm just curious why more writers don't try riskier ventures when it comes to fantasy when there are such limitless possibilities.



There are a few logical answers:

1. Riskier stories aren't what they like. 
2. They don't feel they have the skill to pull it off. 
3. They want more experience with the traditional stuff before trying their hand at the risky stuff.
4. They are trying to make a living with their writing and don't feel that the financial risk of writing material without a sure audience is worthwhile.

Oh, forgot one.

5. They think they _are_ writing riskier ventures but what they think of risky material isn't what you think of as risky material.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I think the point, BWFoster, is that you are making an absolute value judgement about books. You are saying certain books ARE crap. But quality in literature is subjective. One person's crap is another person's treasure.



See, and I think it's the kind of attitude that you are expressing that will help maintain the stigma associated with self publishing.  What you seem to be saying is, "We have no right to judge a the quality of a book's writing."

I think that's BS.

I believe that bad writing does exist and that most reasonably competent authors can probably spot it (at least when it's not their own.).  What I find interesting/funny is that we keep having this kind of conversation on this site for writers.  Should you use the rules?  What makes the writing good?  Do I have any right to judge?  I don't think that editors and publishers are sitting around saying, "I wonder what makes writing good."

Take your work and find an editor.  That person will tell you quickly in no uncertain terms exactly what you screwed up.  In my experience, the advice from the person greatly enhances the work, so I'm inclined to agree with them.

EDIT: Let's try a different argument.

Mythopoet, has your writing improved since you started writing?  If you're anything like me, you began at a newb level, learned a lot, and applied what you learned and saw huge advances in quality.  If that is the case, it proves that different quality levels reagarding the craft of writing do exist.

You existed at one quality level at Point A and now you exist at a different one at Point B.

If different quality levels exist, it makes sense that different authors put out work while they are at different points on the scale.  Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to say, "Hey, author A, your work isn't quite up to snuff yet.  Go back and perfect your craft a while before you foist yourself on the public."


----------



## PaulineMRoss

BWFoster78 said:


> If different quality levels exist, it makes sense that different authors put out work while they are at different points on the scale.  Therefore, it is certainly reasonable to say, "Hey, author A, your work isn't quite up to snuff yet.  Go back and perfect your craft a while before you foist yourself on the public."



You seem to be assuming there's some sort of linear scale for quality, calibrated (somehow) from 'crap' to 'awesome'. Life's not like that. Writing isn't like that. I've read books that were technically less than brilliant but sizzled with creativity and imagery. I've read books that were beautifully written but the plot and characters were close to incomprehensible. I've read books (OK, one book) that was unbelievably badly edited but I loved the premise. I have no idea where they'd rate on your scale, but I enjoyed all of them.

I honestly don't believe there is any way to objectively measure the 'quality' of a book, beyond the rock-bottom basics like spelling, punctuation and grammar. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of whether readers like it or not. A lot of what passes for the 'rules' of writing these days is designed simply to make the book more readable so that more readers will like it. Most of the editing I'm doing on my own work involves clarifying, simplifying, breaking up long paragraphs, removing infodumps, adding spots of colour for highlight. Where does it fall on the 'crap' to 'awesome' scale? Dunno. <shrugs> I don't judge it that way.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Where does it fall on the 'crap' to 'awesome' scale? Dunno. <shrugs> I don't judge it that way.



Pauline,

Really, really I don't want to offend you here, but what the crap?

Don't you do reviews for Fantasy Review Barn?  Are not those reviews done on a star rating system?  Isn't a star rating system essentially saying 1 is crap and 5 is awesome (or whatever your scale is)?

How in the world can you say that you don't do judge books that way?

EDIT: In fact, I just went and found a 1-star review that you did.  How are you on the other side of this topic than I am?  What I've tried to say is this:

1. A lot of self published stuff is crap (I get that you disagree with me on the relative quantity.  You, I think, feel a lot more of it is decent than I do.   But, from your 1-star ratings, you've obviously found some that is crap.  I would also think that that is not an uncommon occurrence considering I read one of your open letters to fantasy authors telling them stuff they've done wrong.)

2. It's possible for a book's quality to be crap.  (Again, It's hard for me to see how you can disagree given that you've rated books 1-star.)

3. It's okay to call crap, crap.  (See above.)

4. Telling the author that he's writing crap is actually a service.  How can he improve if he doesn't know that he needs to.  (As a reviewer, again, who give 1-star rating, how can you disagree with this?)


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil,

Sorry, I missed your post earlier.  Hate those ones that end up at the end of the page...



> I don't think he's saying "don't criticize people," he's just saying try to be more constructive when you can.



That's not the way I read it at all.  It seems to me like there is a sizeable contingent out there who seem to think that it's not okay to criticize any writer at any time for anything.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but that's the vibe I'm getting.



> Everyone's a critic nowadays and everyone has different tastes.



There is a big difference between different tastes and being able to discern what does and doesn't work.

Look, I hated Game of Thrones, but I don't think that writing was crap.  In fact, it worked quite well; the story itself just didn't fit my tastes.  It's not hard to recognize that I didn't like it because of the content of the story, not the skill displayed in the writing technique or in telling the story.  I would think, and, again, maybe I'm wrong, most authors have similar abilities.



> I think the point he's trying to make is there are more tactful ways to help someone improve.



Again, just not the way I read it.  Maybe Mythopoet can weigh in here.  I got the vibe that he supported the whole "don't criticize because who are you to judge because somebody, somewhere might like it" argument.

EDIT: I went back and reread that last point on the blog post.  I really think his meaning is open to interpretation.

To be clear: when I offer criticism to someone, my purpose is to help them improve their writing because I feel the better writing improves their chances of success.


----------



## Philip Overby

BW: I get that you want to help people, and I admire that, but there as just other ways to criticize someone than to be so blunt. If your criticism is falling on deaf ears, it's not because your advice is bad, it's just maybe the way your present it. You know the whole catching flies with honey instead of vinegar deal.



> Look, I hated Game of Thrones, but I don't think that writing was crap. In fact, it worked quite well; the story itself just didn't fit my tastes. It's not hard to recognize that I didn't like it because of the content of the story, not the skill displayed in the writing technique or in telling the story. I would think, and, again, maybe I'm wrong, most authors have similar abilities.



I think sometimes our tastes as readers can interfere with what we think is good or bad though. I may read a self-published story and find it very interesting despite it's flaws, while you may not be able to look past its flaws to enjoy it. It sounds like you read as a writer a lot of the times, and that may sap a lot of fun out of reading in my opinion. While I do note what some authors do good and bad in my opinion, I mostly read for enjoyment, not an excuse to pick something apart.

That said, this thread isn't about the quality of self-publishing. Not sure why posts about self-publishing always go to this. Perhaps starting a new thread to discuss the quality of self-publishing would be a good place to continue this discussion. For this particular thread, I'm more interested in why self-published authors aren't trying to write more daring fantasy when the shackles are off.

To address Mythpoet:



> 1. Riskier stories aren't what they like.



Fair enough. Safe fiction is sometimes better fiction. 



> 2. They don't feel they have the skill to pull it off.



So if this is the case, they have the skill to write epic fantasy? It's not like that is easy to write either.



> 3. They want more experience with the traditional stuff before trying their hand at the risky stuff.



A good point, but again I don't mean experimental, weird stuff when I say risky. I just mean trying to write fantasy that is harder to define by a genre. A vast majority of fantasy I see on the market is either epic or urban fantasy. While I like those, I just would like to see more is all.



> 4. They are trying to make a living with their writing and don't feel that the financial risk of writing material without a sure audience is worthwhile.



That makes sense, but it goes back to my original argument that if self-publishers are just doing what traditional publishers are doing, what makes them different? If there is such a flooded market of epic fantasy it becomes harder and harder to pick out the good ones when it comes to self-publishers. Traditional publishing has the advantage of having a promotional machine behind it in most cases. So if an awesome new epic fantasy comes out, I'll most likely hear about it from advance reviews and social media. But the next great self-published epic fantasy is going to be harder and harder to find, unless the writer is a wizard at marketing. The next great fantasy yarn that bucks the preconceived notions of what fantasy has to be might just garner more attention is all I'm saying. 



> Oh, forgot one.
> 
> 5. They think they are writing riskier ventures but what they think of risky material isn't what you think of as risky material.



This could be true as well. I guess everyone defines these kind of topics differently. I'm sure there are hundreds of authors out there that are probably doing exactly what I'm discussing here, I just haven't found them yet. I'd say of my limited exposure to self-published authors, I run into more epic fantasy than anything else. The thing is for me, if I'm already reading a dozen epic fantasy books (which I am at the moment) then it makes it harder for me, as a reader, to take a risk on another epic fantasy by an unknown author. A fantasy story about a lonely wizard suffering depression that uses spells to entertain himself and to charm people into being his friends? Well, that might just interest me more from a self-published writer. Maybe that doesn't interest a wide fan base, but to me it would stand out more than another "in the kingdom of Shalad a war is brewing, etc. etc." 

In any case, this topic intrigues me so I'll be writing an article about it on the main page after the discussions we've had here.


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> Phil,
> 
> I gotta say that I disagree pretty strongly with the guy's last point.



If you "strongly disagree" with the point "Don't be an asshole" then we have nothing further to discuss. You and I will never see eye to eye.



Phil the Drill said:


> Fair enough. Safe fiction is sometimes better fiction.



Well, that point has nothing to do with "better" or "worse". It has everything to do with what makes the writer happy.




Phil the Drill said:


> So if this is the case, they have the skill to write epic fantasy? It's not like that is easy to write either.



Writing within established genre tropes is not easier than exploring new ground? What?



Phil the Drill said:


> A good point, but again I don't mean experimental, weird stuff when I say risky. I just mean trying to write fantasy that is harder to define by a genre. A vast majority of fantasy I see on the market is either epic or urban fantasy. While I like those, I just would like to see more is all.



Then I guess I'm thoroughly confused by what you are actually trying to suggest writers should do. 




Phil the Drill said:


> That makes sense, but it goes back to my original argument that if self-publishers are just doing what traditional publishers are doing, what makes them different? If there is such a flooded market of epic fantasy it becomes harder and harder to pick out the good ones when it comes to self-publishers.



Self-published writers DO NOT need to differentiate themselves from traditionally published writers. All writers enter the market place on equal terms now. Most readers don't care about how an author is published, many don't even notice. Readers understand that authors all stand out from each other because of their unique voice and storytelling skill, not because of how they are published. 



Phil the Drill said:


> Traditional publishing has the advantage of having a promotional machine behind it in most cases.



No, very few authors receive the benefit of marketing from traditional publishers. Only reliable bestsellers get it these days. Everyone else is basically like a lottery ticket to the publishers. They hope new authors will become a surprise bestseller so that they can rake in the cash with practically no effort. If you don't then you'll end up getting dropped because your book didn't "perform". 



Phil the Drill said:


> So if an awesome new epic fantasy comes out, I'll most likely hear about it from advance reviews and social media.



If you pay attention to that sort of thing. Most people hear about books from natural word of mouth.



Phil the Drill said:


> But the next great self-published epic fantasy is going to be harder and harder to find, unless the writer is a wizard at marketing. The next great fantasy yarn that bucks the preconceived notions of what fantasy has to be might just garner more attention is all I'm saying.



It might garner more attention, in certain circles. There no reason to think that will lead to significantly more sales though. There are certain types of readers who care about critical acclaim and challenging preconceived notions and pretentious things like that. Most only care about a good story.


----------



## Philip Overby

> It might garner more attention, in certain circles. There no reason to think that will lead to significantly more sales though. There are certain types of readers who care about critical acclaim and challenging preconceived notions and pretentious things like that. Most only care about a good story.



Well, I was with you until you said "pretentious things like that." It sounds like anyone who challenges the status quo is perceived as pretentious. I'm not sure I think my suggestion is pretentious.  



> Self-published writers DO NOT need to differentiate themselves from traditionally published writers. All writers enter the market place on equal terms now. Most readers don't care about how an author is published, many don't even notice. Readers understand that authors all stand out from each other because of their unique voice and storytelling skill, not because of how they are published.



And I don't believe all writers enter the market as equals either. A debut traditionally published author is most likely going to get more exposure than a debut self-published author.



> Writing within established genre tropes is not easier than exploring new ground? What?



Yes, it's hard if not harder because you have to avoid the minefield of being cliche, trending familiar ground too much, being predictable, etc. etc. I think it's actually very hard to write epic fantasy without being too homogenous to the point in which every story stays the same. Those writing epic fantasy that I admire buck the tropes or turn them on their heads. That's why they're successful.



> Then I guess I'm thoroughly confused by what you are actually trying to suggest writers should do.



I've said several times that it would just be nice to have more choices when it comes to fantasy. Self-publishers have more a chance of doing so than traditional publishers is all I'm saying because they don't have gatekeepers telling them something won't sell. It's up to them if they decide it's worth trying to sell or not.



> If you pay attention to that sort of thing. Most people hear about books from natural word of mouth.



Forums factor into what I meant about advance reviews and social media, although I didn't mention that. Unless every single book you read is told to you by someone else in person.

In any case, we're talking in circles. You seem to have strong opinions on the lack of need to distinguish indie writers, while I have strong opinions that they do need to be. You think my suggestion makes no sense, so let's just leave it at that. You're not going convince me and I'm not going to convince you. 

I have enjoyed trying to convince you though. I don't normally find myself passionate about anything enough to have the energy to argue it.


----------



## Ankari

First, I'm going to have to ask everyone to take the edge off of your responses. I can read the emotion behind your words. While passion is a desired aspect of art, it can incite passions in others. Opposing passions is conflict. Resort to reason. Please.



Mythopoet said:


> Self-published writers DO NOT need to differentiate themselves from traditionally published writers. All writers enter the market place on equal terms now. Most readers don't care about how an author is published, many don't even notice. Readers understand that authors all stand out from each other because of their unique voice and storytelling skill, not because of how they are published.
> 
> No, very few authors receive the benefit of marketing from traditional publishers. Only reliable bestsellers get it these days. Everyone else is basically like a lottery ticket to the publishers. They hope new authors will become a surprise bestseller so that they can rake in the cash with practically no effort. If you don't then you'll end up getting dropped because your book didn't "perform".
> 
> If you pay attention to that sort of thing. Most people hear about books from natural word of mouth.
> 
> It might garner more attention, in certain circles. There no reason to think that will lead to significantly more sales though. There are certain types of readers who care about critical acclaim and challenging preconceived notions and pretentious things like that. Most only care about a good story.



Mythopoet,

You're somewhat right about self publishers. They don't have to differentiate from traditional authors, they have to differentiate from other self publishers. There is a stigma associated with self publishers. No matter how you splice it, the stigma is real. Self publishers, then, need to differentiate themselves from other self publishers because, among many things, they emulate traditionally produced material. I think that is the point Phil was making.

Most readers don't care about how authors are traditionally published, but they do care that they product they buy is of professional grade. I've never once bought a book and looked to see who published it. I buy book based on a few criteria:

1) The cover. If the cover is good, then the author/publisher felt the product was good enough to shell over a couple hundred bucks for a decent cover. Most covers from established artists cost over $500, and $1000 isn't an extreme figure. If self publishers get stock images and photoshop them to form a cover, it's a sign the author hasn't invested in other crucial things.

2) The back blurb. I read those. If they grab me, I'll proceed to the last, and most important point.

3) I read the first chapter. If I can't stand the author's style of writing, I don't buy the book. As BWFoster points out, this is where most self publishers fall hard. There is a flow that comes with a polished piece. I'm sure most self publishers do a couple revisions, maybe even seven, but they don't invest into a professional editor. They may have a buddy that is really good at grammar, or a family member that's an English teacher, but that's only a half-measure. Editors go to school for a reason. They put the time in reading slush piles to form a honed sense of what works. If a self publisher wants to be a publisher, s/he needs to do what real publishers do: hire professionals to do specific jobs.

Traditionally published authors receive _that much benefit._ They also receive the blessing of being in a brick and mortar store. How many self publishers can claim that honor? Do you think it's insignificant? How many ebooks are bought by people browsing a bookstore's shelves? I know I've done that.

It's true most authors have to do their own marketing, even if they are traditionally published. But, I think the trade off is worth it. Get your name recognized, gain a fan base, then self publish.


----------



## Philip Overby

Thanks, Ankari. It is good to mention that we can have a discussion but to keep the absolutes and the edge off if possible. I am passionate about this topic, so I hope my passion doesn't come through as hostile in any way.



> You're somewhat write about self publishers. They don't have to differentiate from traditional authors, they have to differentiate from other self publishers. There is a stigma associated with self publishers. No matter how you splice it, the stigma is real. Self publishers, then, need to differentiate themselves from other self publishers because, among many things, they emulate traditionally produced material. I think that is the point Phil was making.



Yes, this. Maybe I couldn't explain what I meant as concisely, but this is what I'm getting at. I don't have my finger on the pulse of what makes self-publishing tick, but I would say there is still a very real stigma. My suggestions have all been to delude this stigma or at least think of ways for indie writers to make themselves stand out from the crowd. Good storytelling isn't always enough, sadly.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

BWFoster78 said:


> Don't you do reviews for Fantasy Review Barn?  Are not those reviews done on a star rating system?  Isn't a star rating system essentially saying 1 is crap and 5 is awesome (or whatever your scale is)?



Not at all. 5 stars means: I loved it. 1 star means: I couldn't read it. The scale is based on my personal enjoyment of it. It has absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with the *quality* of a book. We've all come across books we hated that the entire rest of the world loved, and vice versa. My reviews are simply my personal summary of what I enjoyed about a book and what I didn't like about it. If you've read any of my 1* reviews you'll see that I generally say: if you like this kind of story and you don't mind [problem I hated] you'll probably enjoy this book.

I do occasionally get requests from authors for a review and I find the book is unreadable (to me) because of grammatical errors and so forth, in which case I tell the author that when I turn down the request. Even then, I don't say it's crap, I say: I found the following errors on the first page, you need another round of editing. I don't think I've ever said: this book is crap. I just don't think it's possible to judge the quality of a book in that way.


----------



## BWFoster78

> If your criticism is falling on deaf ears, it's not because your advice is bad, it's just maybe the way your present it.



Who said my criticism is falling on deaf ears?  I think that, overall, my direct criticism to other authors is fairly well received.

Note that in a forum I say, speaking generally, "If you want to succeed as a writer, you need to put in a lot more effort at learning craft than it appears a lot of self published authors do."  Again, this type of situation, I am quite blunt.

When I'm addressing a specific author for a critique, my tone is much more along the lines of, "This specific issue did not work for me.  A lot of authors think that doing it this way (elaboration) is better.  You may want to consider it."

Okay, well maybe not quite that soft, but much more that than, "Hey, dude, you suck."


----------



## BWFoster78

Pauline,

I think I understand your viewpoint.  If I've got it right, the difference that you perceive between the two of us is:

You: You judge books purely based on personal judgement which is purely relative and should not be applied to any objective measure.
Me: I try to make objective judgements of books.

You feel, again if I've interpreted you correctly, that trying to be objective is BAD while being relative is OKAY.

By that reasoning, the following judgement of a book would be fine:

I could not get into this book.  It seemed to me that the author had trouble stringing words together in a coherent manner, that the plot, as far as I could tell, didn't exist, and the characters behaved in a manner inconsistent with any known psychological profile.  If you, dear review reader, don't mind that the book is essentially a jumble of random words, you may find it enjoyable.

I stated my personal opinion and listed specific things I didn't like.  I concluded that another reader may like the book if he can get past the things I didn't like.  Therefore, I'm being relative, which is okay.

To me, this is just semantics.  I'm essentially saying in the above post that, "This book is crap."  I'm simply using more words to do so.


----------



## Philip Overby

BWFoster78 said:


> Who said my criticism is falling on deaf ears?  I think that, overall, my direct criticism to other authors is fairly well received.
> 
> Note that in a forum I say, speaking generally, "If you want to succeed as a writer, you need to put in a lot more effort at learning craft than it appears a lot of self published authors do."  Again, this type of situation, I am quite blunt.
> 
> When I'm addressing a specific author for a critique, my tone is much more along the lines of, "This specific issue did not work for me.  A lot of authors think that doing it this way (elaboration) is better.  You may want to consider it."
> 
> Okay, well maybe not quite that soft, but much more that than, "Hey, dude, you suck."



I don't want to get into this further publicly, but if you're more curious about what I'm getting at, I'd be happy to talk to you on chat sometime. 

I'd prefer if this thread continued to discuss the OP and didn't keep getting into comments about the quality of self-published works.

There's a recent thread that already discusses this here: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/publishing/10996-another-question-quality-self-pub-3.html


----------



## gethinmorgan

There have been some interest in creating new, vibrant fantasy settings and tropes - Ahmed and Mievile instantly spring to mind - but most fantasy nowadays is either *urban or epic*. And the Epic had a tenancy to be medieval European, _al la_ Lotr or GoT. I like Abecrombie - but I know he's not going to break any moulds.

(_Sweeping statement, I know!_

The problem with publishing experimental work is that it's going to sit there, for a long time, and not move. Sub-genres like alt-lit, New Weird or Slipstream will only appeal to a small audience - so it verges on a labour of love rather than a sound brand-building exercise.

And as for dismissing indie-publishing - *Indie-fantasy is all I read now*. Quality is just someone's opinion.


----------



## Philip Overby

I guess what I was suggesting wasn't so much experimental fantasy fiction, but just what Ahmed (who you mentioned) suggested when the Diversity in SFF discussion was going on as of late. He said, “I want fewer kings and starship captains, more coach drivers and space waitresses.” I say let's have all of them! 

I'm just not sure why treading the same ground is the only viable option for fantasy writers. Is that the only way to truly build an audience? Maybe I'm being naive, but I believe there's the chance for a pack of writers to really challenge the conventions of fantasy. I'm not talking New Weird or something like that (which I like), but just putting the focus elsewhere. Maybe a micro rather than macro approach. 

I just wrote an article about this topic for Mythic Scribes, so yeah, I'd love to see what the reactions are going to be. I made sure to repeat over and over again that I both read and write epic fantasy, so people won't think I'm trying to destroy the paradigm or something.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm just not sure why treading the same ground is the only viable option for fantasy writers. Is that the only way to truly build an audience? Maybe I'm being naive, but I believe there's the chance for a pack of writers to really challenge the conventions of fantasy. I'm not talking New Weird or something like that (which I like), but just putting the focus elsewhere. Maybe a micro rather than macro approach.



I've seen this mentioned elsewhere on the site in the last few months. Writing stories about the "little people" of the fantasy worlds. I believe that this could be rather interesting if done well. It's also what I'm trying to do with my current WIP, so the idea is dear to me. 
I think that to do this you'd have to put more focus on world and character than on action and adventure. One of the first things I noticed was repeated regularly here is that character is important and that as long as you have an interesting character you can get away with a less then enchanting story.

I've also seen mention here and there on the forums that people are bouncing around the idea of re-using the same setting from story to story. These stories aren't meant to be related other than that they're taking place in the same setting. This isn't exactly a new idea. Discworld has been around for ages and I'm sure other writers have done it as well. 
In a way this is similar to epics in that it allow the reader to come back to the same setting they're familiar with over and over again. Unlike the epic it would allow the author to change the style of their stories and how they're told. You could tell light-hearted romance stories focused in one part of the world and you could do a miserable grimdark tragedy set somewhere else.
This approach also releases you from the giant undertaking of writing an entire twelve and half volume epic monstrosity. 

Also, I'm planning on doing this as well once I figure out how to write, so this idea is dear to me too.


----------



## Philip Overby

I think the way I expressed the original post might have come across as saying self-published authors should only try to do things that go against current trends. I never said that. I just said that it might be a missed opportunity for a group of writers to show that self-published writers are doing what mainstream fantasy is not. This is no way saying that epic fantasy needs to go away. Quite the contrary. I just think there's room for fantasy that dares to buck conventions, such as following a character as he does something in his village, where it has no bearing on the outside world whatsoever. I don't quite understand why fantasy stories almost always tend to have the main character's decisions have a bearing on the entire world. Again, I like these stories, I just hope for more is all.


----------



## C Hollis

> I don't quite understand why fantasy stories almost always tend to have the main character's decisions have a bearing on the entire world. Again, I like these stories, I just hope for more is all.


I had a similar conversation with my wife a couple of days ago.  I enjoy epic fantasy a lot, it has always been in my rotation of reading, but as much as I enjoy it, I tire of the "save the cheerleader, save the world" premise.
Why does it typically have to be the entire world?  Why can't it be about the character's world?
Meaning:  Why can't the quest just be about the family, the village, the region, or the kingdom?  We aren't devoid of such titles, but they are few.  I really don't see me ever writing a story about saving the world, I like to keep it closer to home.

And really, that one topic that is different from the norm could be successful.

I have also considered writing a fantasy that fell closer to the realms of a simple literary story, much like a Steinbeck novel.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Could this be a parallel to the gaming (or movie) industry? The costs involved in making a big game these days are enormous, meaning the stakes are really high. The people able to invest that kind of money are reluctant to part with it on something they perceive as risky or uncertain.
We're still getting big amazing triple-A games, but they're rarely all that revolutionary or different.

However, if you look at indie games you see all kinds of interesting and innovative games being published. You'll find everything from the purely experimental to traditional platformers. The quality is extremely varied, but there's some really good new stuff coming out and while it may not be as polished as some of the more well-known franchises there's a lot of enthusiasm and creativity going into making these games.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I enjoy epic fantasy a lot, it has always been in my rotation of reading, but as much as I enjoy it, I tire of the "save the cheerleader, save the world" premise.
> Why does it typically have to be the entire world? Why can't it be about the character's world?



I thought that "saving the world" is part of the definition of "epic" fantasy.  I'm no expert in the differences between fantasy genres, but it was my understanding that, if the story focuses on a smaller scale such as saving the character's village or whatever, the story isn't rightfully classified as epic fantasy.  

Perhaps you're missing out on the stories you want because you're looking in the wrong genre?

Regarding Phil's original topic:

If you're trying to get noticed as a self-published author, maybe it is best to go against the grain, to produce something that no one else is doing.  My concern with that approach is that, if you're truly writing something that no one else is, you almost have to thwart reader expectations (after all, if you're not going against what the reader expects, you're probably producing the same thing that the reader has read).

In my experience, it's much more difficult for an author to successfully pull off plot and character arcs that go against expectations than it is to pull off normal ones for which you have tons of examples.  Truthfully, I've read a lot of stories lately where the authors didn't even pull of the traditional plots well.

Maybe, if you're just starting out, it's better to make things as easy on yourself as possible.


----------



## Philip Overby

> If you're trying to get noticed as a self-published author, maybe it is best to go against the grain, to produce something that no one else is doing. My concern with that approach is that, if you're truly writing something that no one else is, you almost have to thwart reader expectations (after all, if you're not going against what the reader expects, you're probably producing the same thing that the reader has read).



My feeling is that self-published authors don't have to totally reinvent the wheel, but maybe just make things even simpler. Instead of having huge casts and conflicts, make it smaller. As C. Hollis said, around the local village or something. I've been doing that more and more with my own fiction. I want to make the conflicts more local. 

For example, one idea I was tossing around is about a craftswoman who makes jewelry and trinkets for the local men and women in her village. Kind of like a fantasy version of Etsy.  However, some swamp hags show up in her village and lure people with newer, shinier trinkets that promise infinite beauty and such. This makes the craftswoman have to figure out how to get her business back from the hags, who have been using nefarious means to steal her business. It could also be like a comparison of corporations vs. small businesses. Pretty relateable I think. Simple. 

Maybe this sounds like more of a short story, but I think with other added conflicts, the story could expand to a novel length. This story isn't reinventing the genre in anyway, but it's offering a more focused story that deals with simpler goals. I would feel it would almost be easier for new writer to try something along what the lines of what I'm talking about and still find an audience, than writing a huge epic right out the gate. Coming from someone who has written epics, I think I'm closing in on finishing my last one (for now). 

I think the impression my earlier posts gave was that fantasy needs to be all weird or experimental for self-published writers to get attention. That's not really what I was getting at. I'm just thinking of writers looking at what mainstream publishing is doing and trying something that doesn't exactly match that is all.


----------



## Philip Overby

Svrtnsse said:


> Could this be a parallel to the gaming (or movie) industry? The costs involved in making a big game these days are enormous, meaning the stakes are really high. The people able to invest that kind of money are reluctant to part with it on something they perceive as risky or uncertain.
> We're still getting big amazing triple-A games, but they're rarely all that revolutionary or different.
> 
> However, if you look at indie games you see all kinds of interesting and innovative games being published. You'll find everything from the purely experimental to traditional platformers. The quality is extremely varied, but there's some really good new stuff coming out and while it may not be as polished as some of the more well-known franchises there's a lot of enthusiasm and creativity going into making these games.



I like to think also of the comparison between Hollywood and indie films. Hollywood tends to shy away from more daring kinds of movies and the ones that do try different things usually win Oscars. I'm not saying self-publishers should only write high brow fiction, but there's just an open avenue to try new things that mainstream publishing isn't attempting at the moment. Epic fantasy is cool, but variety would be awesome. Sure, reading outside the genre helps that, but fantasy can be spreading its wings more I think.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Instead of having huge casts and conflicts, make it smaller. As C. Hollis said, around the local village or something.



Phil,

Again, I'm pretty sure that such a book would not be properly categorized as epic fantasy.  By pretty much every definition I've ever read, epic fantasy is characterized by large casts and being "epic" in nature such that the actions of the hero impact the entire fantasy world.

Perhaps if you search for tales in other subgenres, you might find that some of the stories you want already exist.

EDIT: I don't know if I'm making myself clear or not, so I'll state it one more time.  It is my understanding that, if you write a story about a hero saving his village, you will not have "expanded" the epic genre.  You will have written a story that is not, by definition, an epic fantasy.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm actually just talking about fantasy in general, not epic fantasy. I'm saying it would be interesting to try more local ideas in fantasy. Fantasy in a broad sense, not getting into sub-genres like epic fantasy.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm actually just talking about fantasy in general, not epic fantasy. I'm saying it would be interesting to try more local ideas in fantasy. Fantasy in a broad sense, not getting into sub-genres like epic fantasy.



When most people think "fantasy," they think of the famous epic fantasies, but there are a bunch of sub-genres out there.  Have you searched some of these?  I have to think that people are out there writing in other genres and that some stories like the ones you're looking for probably already exist.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I'm tempted to make another parallel - with music this time.

It's not uncommon for musicians to play in more than one band. Once you've established your band and it's identity, changing it up may not be much of an option. Starting a side project and playing something else is an option though. As an example, Charlie Watts from The Rolling Stones is involved with quite a few different other bands he's playing in - with more or less success.

On the literature side of things there was recently an incident where JK Rowling got her pen-name for a non-HP novel revealed. She'd wanted to try her hand at something else to see what it was like and didn't want to put her own name on it and somehow the name got out anyway. Maybe if she'd just self-published the thing that wouldn't have happened and no one would have known.


----------



## C Hollis

> Perhaps you're missing out on the stories you want because you're looking in the wrong genre?



Yep, that's it.  Just found myself browsing romance when I wanted an orc story...


----------



## BWFoster78

> It's not uncommon for musicians to play in more than one band. Once you've established your band and it's identity, changing it up may not be much of an option.



I'm not sure how much the parallel translates or even how valid the example is.  I'm not a music guy, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of artists have crossed over into other genres.

It seems to me that there's a lot of room for a speculative fiction writer to explore different genres.  I've read both scifi and fantasy written from the same author, and it's even easier to move across sub genres.


----------



## Philip Overby

BWFoster78 said:


> When most people think "fantasy," they think of the famous epic fantasies, but there are a bunch of sub-genres out there.  Have you searched some of these?  I have to think that people are out there writing in other genres and that some stories like the ones you're looking for probably already exist.



I'm not saying they don't exist elsewhere, I just don't get why they can't exist in fantasy. That's sort of the issue I'm addressing. When people think fantasy, they think epic fantasy almost always. Why is that? Because that's what mainstream publishers have taught us and produced. Anything wrong with that? No. Just fantasy can be such a broad genre if it wants to be. Why does it have to be one thing? Because that's what most people buy? I guess so. My overall point is that self-publishers especially could be in a good position to expand the public's conception to what fantasy is if they wanted to.

When people think of science fiction they think of robots, aliens, and lasers. Does that mean all SF has to be that? I've heard that the movie _Her_ really turns the SF genre on its head and tries to do something with it that's not often done. There's no violence, no insane AI, just a story about a guy that falls in love with his OS. Sounds like it's pretty simple, but also very interesting as well.


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure how much the parallel translates or even how valid the example is.  I'm not a music guy, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of artists have crossed over into other genres.



Yeah, it doesn't translate all that well. It's more something I was musing on for a bit and felt like sharing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I'm not saying they don't exist elsewhere, I just don't get why they can't exist in fantasy. That's sort of the issue I'm addressing. When people think fantasy, they think epic fantasy almost always. Why is that? Because that's what mainstream publishers have taught us and produced. Anything wrong with that? No. Just fantasy can be such a broad genre if it wants to be. Why does it have to be one thing? Because that's what most people buy? I guess so. My overall point is that self-publishers especially could be in a good position to expand the public's conception to what fantasy is if they wanted to.



Phil,

My point was that, even though a lot of people equate epic fantasy with fantasy, epic fantasy is not all the genre has to offer. 

There are tons of people out there who love romantic fantasy.  I'm partial to superhero novels (another subgenre of fantasy).  I also enjoy reading alternate history (yet another subgenre of fantasy).

There are many, many thriving subgenres out there who get lots of readers.  All these subgenres combined make up the overall genre of fantasy.

If you're worried about the perception that epic fantasy is fantasy, I'm not sure what can be done about that.  Perception is what it is, and it's difficult to change. 

My point is that:

a) there is a market for fantasy subgenres
b) authors are serving those markets


----------



## Philip Overby

Yeah, I get that. I read pretty widely in different sub-genres, but I still find the prevalence tends toward epic fantasy or more recently even urban fantasy. I agree, not much that can be done (or should be done) about that. My point was that if self-publishers are looking to make a splash on the market their first go out, is putting another epic fantasy book out there always the best option? It's just something to consider for writers who may want to differentiate themselves. 

I understand how things are supposed to go. Write the best story and the readers will come. I kind of feel like that's always not enough though. Sometimes an over-saturation of a certain sub-genre (see: paranormal romance) might get a certain kind of backlash against it. For example, if you gave me ten epic fantasy books by debut authors and ten fantasy books in other sub-genres by debut authors, I'd most likely be attracted more by the synopses and samples of the other sub-genres. This is just me though, I know I may not be reflective of the average reader. However, this may not always be the case because the vast majority of what I read is epic fantasy because that's the vast majority of what is being published by both traditional and self-published authors.


----------



## BWFoster78

> My point was that if self-publishers are looking to make a splash on the market their first go out, is putting another epic fantasy book out there always the best option? It's just something to consider for writers who may want to differentiate themselves.



Okay.  I get this point.  From your previous posts, it sounded like you advocated that a new author blaze new ground and break from genre constraints.  This statement says that you wonder if it would be better if authors explored other subgenres instead of epic fantasy.

That may not be a bad idea at all.  There are many, many established subgenres, each with markets.  As long as you understand what the audience of that subgenre is looking for, that may indeed be a good way to make a name for yourself.

For me, I chose epic because it is the story that I want to tell.  I like other subgenres, but my first love is epic.  Maybe it would be smarter to start with something else, but sometimes it's smarter to go with what your heart wants.

I don't agree with the implication that epic fantasy is somehow played out.  The fact is that I have a hard time finding really good epic fantasy tales like the one I'm trying to tell.  It would be a completely different story if, when searching for "small town nothing becomes the hero to save the kingdom," I found more highly-recommended books out there than I could ever read.


----------



## Philip Overby

I don't necessarily think epic fantasy is played out either. The last several books I've bought would be classified as such. There are still a lot of awesome stories that can be told in the sub-genre. It's just that there are already A LOT of epic fantasy books. For me, a writer has to be really doing something to subvert the epic fantasy tropes, the characters, and the plot to get my attention. It's getting harder and harder. That's one reason I have turned to the so-called "grimdark" writers because they offered something different within the form of epic fantasies. 

I would love for a group of self-published writers to either invent a new genre (I won't even get into the insane things erotica writers have done), expand on established sub-genres, or dabble with blending genres. To me, as someone who hasn't read a lot of self-published fiction, that would get me more excited about reading those kind of books. 

For example, if a group of fantasy writers made irreverent fantasy a la Robert Bevan (who I know we both like) I would be all about that. He's carving out a niche as a self-published writer and doing well for himself (if his sales ranks are an indication.) 

Sometimes it takes one author doing something, others thinking it's cool, and then expand on it before a sub-genre can truly become marketable. Sure, this may present the "so and so is copying so and so" effect, but at least it gives readers looking for a certain kind of fantasy more options than they may have previously not had.

China Mieville is a writer I admire a lot. I wonder why more people haven't emulated his style. He's won awards, is successful, and is often praised as an innovator in the genre. Perhaps he's inaccessible for a wider market, but he appeals to a strong niche I think. More writers might try that working in other established sub-genres.


----------



## BWFoster78

> For me, a writer has to be really doing something to subvert the epic fantasy tropes, the characters, and the plot to get my attention. It's getting harder and harder.



And I'm the exact opposite.  I'm looking for traditional epic fantasy tales of a particular variety done really well, and I have a hard time finding them.

Robert Bevan is definitely an exception to this, but, in general, I find too many issues with authors who try to create their own genre.  When an author deviates from the norm, I tend to think, "Wow, that story would have been so much better if he'd have done this instead of this."


----------



## Philip Overby

You're only looking in the self-published realm I take it? I think there are several writers doing epic fantasy in a traditional sense pretty well at the moment in mainstream fantasy. I don't know of too many that jump right out at me as being awesome self-published fantasy writers. I'm sure they exist. I'm reading some stuff at the moment that might classify, but I think we're on polar opposites when it comes what we like.


----------



## Chessie

Phil, last night when I was browsing on my kindle for some books to read, there seemed to be an overwhelming majority of urban fantasy on the virtual shelves. I've read hardly any urban fantasy, so it was interesting to see it come up so much on my recommendations. More of it than epic fantasy, it seems. My guess is that's one direction that fantasy genre is moving. 

In my own writing, I like to deal with the quirky. I don't write in medieval times with castles and dragons, although I love that stuff. I prefer a 1700s type setting with some personal twists and I really like to write stories about families, mixing potions, shamanic magic, all with a small cast. I don't know how well my work will do out there in the big world once its published but I like the idea of putting something different out there. Granted, I think its safe to say most, if not ALL, authors feel the same way about their own work. 

But I do like the main question you proposed in this thread and I do think the genre has opened up to a variety of stories that are pushing boundaries or what is familiar.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil the Drill said:


> You're only looking in the self-published realm I take it? I think there are several writers doing epic fantasy in a traditional sense pretty well at the moment in mainstream fantasy. I don't know of too many that jump right out at me as being awesome self-published fantasy writers. I'm sure they exist. I'm reading some stuff at the moment that might classify, but I think we're on polar opposites when it comes what we like.



I tend to really dig a specific subset of epic fantasy that features the kid from the small village or farm that grows up to be the all-powerful grand poobah that saves the world (best example: WoT).  If you have an example of a good series like that, I'm up for it whether it's traditional or not.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm sure you've already checked some of these out, but I'll list them anyway:

The Warded Man by Peter V. Brett
The Deed of Paksnarrion (I think this kind of fits, worth a look anyhow) by Elizabeth Moon
The Earthsea Cycle by Ursula K. Le Guin
Magician by Raymond E. Feist
The Deathgate Cycle by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman (they're known for their Dragonlance books, but this is supposed to be different, with strong magic and such)
The Abhorsen Trilogy by Garth Nix
The Left Hand of God by Paul Hoffman

Those are just some. I haven't read most of these, but when I did a quick search, I found some of these. Maybe your cup of tea, maybe not. Worth a look in any case.


----------



## BWFoster78

Phil,

I've read and liked the first two on your list.

The next two, I've heard of but decided not to read.  Not sure of my reasoning, but I distinctly remember deciding not to buy them.

I'll check out the last three.  Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Philip Overby

Chesterama said:


> Phil, last night when I was browsing on my kindle for some books to read, there seemed to be an overwhelming majority of urban fantasy on the virtual shelves. I've read hardly any urban fantasy, so it was interesting to see it come up so much on my recommendations. More of it than epic fantasy, it seems. My guess is that's one direction that fantasy genre is moving.
> 
> In my own writing, I like to deal with the quirky. I don't write in medieval times with castles and dragons, although I love that stuff. I prefer a 1700s type setting with some personal twists and I really like to write stories about families, mixing potions, shamanic magic, all with a small cast. I don't know how well my work will do out there in the big world once its published but I like the idea of putting something different out there. Granted, I think its safe to say most, if not ALL, authors feel the same way about their own work.
> 
> But I do like the main question you proposed in this thread and I do think the genre has opened up to a variety of stories that are pushing boundaries or what is familiar.



I've included urban fantasy in some of my discussion as well, although I've tended to go back to epic fantasy. I do think urban fantasy is becoming more prevalent, but I think a lot of it is getting intertwined in YA. Urban fantasy does tend to try different, neat things that I enjoy. I recently read some of WebMage and really liked it. I put it on my "To Buy" list on my Kindle for when I whittle down some of my books. 

The kind of stuff you write sounds like something I'd be interested in reading. Maybe it's just years of reading epic fantasy makes me long for some simpler stories now and again.

Even though I'm not sure what direction I'm going to go in once I decide I want to publish, I do think supporting self-published writers you think are cool is key to success for them. Even if it's one sale here and one sale there, those add up if you can convince people to give them a try. Sometimes for me I just like sharing someone's book. Even if I haven't gotten a chance to read it or it's not my style, I like helping people spread the word if it sounds like a cool book.


----------

