Graylorne
Archmage
Thank you, C Hollis; that's what I wanted to say but for some stupid emotional reason couldn't find the words.
I agree, but I think the criticism should be more focused than the "self-publishing" is crap. The criticism should be directed at the writers who help strengthen that belief. Call out the writers who pollute the market with hastily written garbage individually. Call out the writers who do it intentionally, don't generalize.
I agree, but I think the criticism should be more focused than the "self-publishing" is crap. The criticism should be directed at the writers who help strengthen that belief. Call out the writers who pollute the market with hastily written garbage individually. Call out the writers who do it intentionally, don't generalize.
There are writers in the self-publishing world who openly admit publishing crap knowing it was crap when they published it. Call those people out, but knock it off with the vague generalizations.
Get rich quick schemers - mass producing unedited crap to populate their author page with titles. Prevalent in erotica, but not exclusive to it.
Impatient writers - The ones who self-publish because they don't want to wait out the traditional process, openly admitting their work isn't quite ready.
Improving by publishing - And they admit it. We all get better as our work at the keyboard progresses, but when you know you're not quite there and you publish anyway...and tell people about it in some "watch me as I learn" blog.
Not ready for traditional publishing - I'm not talking about the stories that traditional publishers don't think will sell. I'm talking about the crap that would get rejected because it's poorly written. In this sense, if it's not ready for traditional publishing, it is not ready for self-publishing. Don't insult the readers.
Like I said, I agree we need to criticize. Many of these writers deserve harsh words of criticism, but not the self-publishing industry as a whole. When you generalize, you also attack the good writers.
Expressing shock that such people exist is hardly generalising the whole industry of self-publishers as being the same.
Oh heck no. I can only stomach so much. But, if we all do our part when we come across that bad book, it adds up. Too many times I hear people railing against self-publishing, but they never take the time to write that bad review for the books they read. It's like I always encourage my readers, write the review. If it's good, write it. If it's bad, write it. Be clear and respectful, but write it.I tend to preface these kind of questions by saying, "This is a serious question" so people don't think I'm being glib, but how do you call these people out? Read loads of crap and then review each one? Someone with an awful lot of time and a strong stomach would have to take on a task like that.
Kind of redundant for me to say, but I disagree. It's one thing to post a story on a peer review site, another to publish it to Smashwords, etc. Peer reviewers know what to expect. Readers (customers whether there is a price tag or not) expect to pick up a quality story.I don't so much mind this kind of thing because it's typically not someone asking for money or having really high expectations for a huge audience. They're just dabbling in things. One reason I like the Challenges section here at Mythic Scribes is to encourage people to write and share it with people. Some of the stuff I've written in the Challenges section is crap at times, but it's a low risk, low visibility place to hone my writing with other people who like doing the same thing.
Without a doubt. They are who they are.I'm of the opinion that the writers who are harshly criticized aren't going to change anyway.
You can't tell readers about every writer you think is pretty awesome, but you can direct them away from the hacks.There's no solution to getting rid of it really. If they know what they're doing is sleazy or crappy, then why change? It's the job of writers who take pride in their work and loyal readers to support other writers who take pride in their work. Lift up the good ones so the bad ones fade into obscurity. You can't warn readers about every single awful hack out there, but you can direct them to the writers you think are pretty awesome.
Just one thing I'd like to note first. Why does one have to chose traditional OR self-publishing?
I'm working on the first draft of my first book. But I took the question as: Why is the mentality that once a person either traditionally publishes or self-publishes, he or she has to keep publishing in the same manner?BWFoster78 said:I don't know about the rest of the authors on this site, but I'm working on finishing my first book. It's not like I have a huge backlog to choose publishing methods for...Just one thing I'd like to note first. Why does one have to chose traditional OR self-publishing?
I agree, but I think the criticism should be more focused than the "self-publishing" is crap. The criticism should be directed at the writers who help strengthen that belief. Call out the writers who pollute the market with hastily written garbage individually. Call out the writers who do it intentionally, don't generalize.
I'm working on the first draft of my first book. But I took the question as: Why is the mentality that once a person either traditionally publishes or self-publishes, he or she has to keep publishing in the same manner?
Noma,
I get you, but a lot of people on this site are like Caged Maiden and myself. We have a book that we're getting ready to put out there, and we're tying to make that decision, "Which method do we choose?"
You can't tell readers about every writer you think is pretty awesome, but you can direct them away from the hacks.
how do you call these people out? Read loads of crap and then review each one?
I don't want to feel impatient or rushed to get something out there just to reach some kind of nebulous goal.
I think that impatience is a relatively valid reason in terms of impatience with the traditional publishing industry. My understanding of the way it works is that you submit a manuscript, wait for months on end for someone to pick it up out of the slush pile, and, most often, finally get a form rejection that doesn't tell you anything about why you were rejected.
Was it because you're not good enough or is it because they didn't feel there was a market for your book?
Even if they do choose to publish you, you're looking at a year or more before the book goes to market.
It seems to me that one serious problem with self publishing is that it is so hard for the aspiring author to get an answer to the question, "Is my writing good enough?"
Like I said, I agree we need to criticize. Many of these writers deserve harsh words of criticism, but not the self-publishing industry as a whole. When you generalize, you also attack the good writers.
I really need to know more and I'm sure those who have been very successful with self-publication aren't simply "waiting" for marketing to fall out of the sky... but I'm unsure what an individual can accomplish with their own marketing. How does one market their book? Do we rely on reviews? I'm just so confused about the specifics of self-publishing, I'm too afraid to try it. Why don't we have a mentoring service, rather than agents? Like, I'd be happy to pay a mentor a cut of my self-published profits (like I would an agent), if they could assist with the process, hold my hand, and make it easy.