Recently, I was at a conference that I feel sure a few self published writers attended. There were some comments made by an agent and a moderator about how unprofessional self publishing is, and how it's always been around but professional writers will always go the "real" way.
I feel for this post to matter I need to point out that I'm not self published, and that while it's tempting I'm not really sure I ever will be self published.
I do editing for people. I've edited for traditionally published writers, self published writers, and unpublished writers. Some of the stuff I've read has been really good, some not. I didn't say some of the stuff I receive from the traditionally published has been really good (though some of it has). I said some of the stuff I see is awesome, and some isn't.
If you jumped over with me from P-52, you probably know I also read. A lot. To date, most of what I've read (other than what I'm sent) has been traditionally published because I don't own an e-reader. My vision isn't great, and with no e-reader print is just the best option for me. You can't usually buy self published books in the store, and I don't shop online so in an industry controlled by a select few, most of what I read is traditionally published. And I have read some really bad traditionally published books. Last year I did 52 book reviews. This year my goal was to review 30 books, and even though I've read way more than 30 books, I've reviewed a handful. I quit doing negative reviews. And while I always make an effort to give balanced reviews if my list of annoyances is longer than my love list I just won't review it. Now having read more than 30 books and only having reviewed five, I'm sure you can guess that I read more than one traditionally published book I didn't feel okay reviewing. But it gets more complicated than that. I read a book that was expected to do fairly well. It jumped from first person to third person for whole sections with no warning it would do so and the sections had no rhyme or reason. It felt like the writer needed to convey something mc couldn't know, so she'd just jump heads. Wow. I went to another signing where the writer got confused by their own writing! I never talk about these things on my blog. I'm not out to insult anyone, or their work. And I'm not out to make enemies. But lots of book bloggers also write. And lots of writers know that they can't be too harsh about a book that may have really had some things wrong with, because they may need to work with that editor. And so traditionally published books, that I have to pay $15-$20 for may not be fairly reviewed. While on the flip-side, a self published book that you usually pay less than $8 and often less than $3 for is overly criticized, because the notion is it must be bad or it would have been traditionally published. The reviewer opens it with the expectation of mistakes, and when you look for something, you usually find it. Not to mention the reviewer probably won't have to work with the editor in the future.
I'd also like to point out that not all books are self published because they couldn't be traditionally published. There are many good reasons to self publish. I have a fairly complex YA ms out right now. Some people like it. Some don't. But some people would like to see it altered in a way that will make integral changes to the story. I'm not sure I'm okay with that. And I know there are some things about the book that I will not change, not even if it means keeping it on my hard drive. I have respect for a writer who chooses to self publish and be true to the story they wrote, over rewriting for one person. Sorry, I just do. (I need to say I'm not advocating no one ever make revisions. That's not what I mean, but I think there comes a time when you as the artist know when something is too far from your vision to work).
I'd like to see changes in the blogosphere reflect changes in the industry. I really do think it's okay to be critical of the self published as long as you review the traditionally published by the same standard. And I'd like to see writer/blogger circles move away from the view that the self published couldn't otherwise be published.
Hi, I'm a fellow campaigner and thought I'd check out your blog. I very much like to color theme, and your article on self-pub and critique is really great. The only thing I found slightly annoying are the pink stars my mouse is "losing" on your site. I guess it's something we could quarrel over for years, but as fellow campaigners we shouldn't fight. So I won't.
ReplyDeleteHey - fellow Campaigner here - thought I'd stop by and visit my other group members. You have a lovely blog! See you out there....
ReplyDeleteI found this a really interesting post, as I suspected that self-publishing has a sort of stigma attached to it but have never seen anyone actually come out and say that they heard an editor/agent/what-have-you actually voice an opinion on the matter.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, there's a lot of dross out there on both sides of the fence. I also feel that there are at least a few self-published works with good writing but poor editing and/or formatting.
I'm inclined to think that more weight will always be given to writing which is published by a known entity, just as short stories and poetry published by print journals and magazines are generally thought more of than those which are published only online. I'd like to see that change, but I'm not convinced it will happen anytime soon.
I'm with a small publisher, and I've seen awful books on both sides. After reading John Locke's book, and watching bookstores vanish, I think the lines will blur further. One day it might not even matter.
ReplyDeleteNewest Follower, here, and part of the campaign. Glad to have found you! :)
ReplyDeleteI suspect that self-publishing is gaining a different reputation and audience with the arrival of Kindle books. I too have read many absolutely awful books published by mainstream publishers who, it would appear, don't seem to care too much what goes inside the cover as long as it has a big name on the outside.
ReplyDeleteWe're in the same Campaign group and so hope to see you again soon.
http://rosalindadam.blogspot.com
I read both traditionally published and self-published books and I've loved and been disappointed by both. You can tell when someone rushed to self-publish or when a traditional publisher was slack on looking for typos. I think it depends on how much time the author and publisher (which may be the same person) put into the book. So, I agree, Beth. People should review both in the same way.
ReplyDeleteI read both. I don't like typos, problems etc. in either. I think the ebook revolution is making it a lot easier to self-publish and is easing some of the stigma. That said: A book needs to be professionally edited. You just cannot skimp on this. Fellow campaigner.
ReplyDeleteGreat article. I read both traditional and self-published books. Like others have said, you find good and bad in both. The only reason I might some day consider self publishing my work is my age and the fact that it takes so long for traditionally published books to come out. :)
ReplyDeleteI like you read mostly traditional books because I don't have an e reader or at least not one I can carry around easily. (I do have a program on my laptop for books) But I have read some self-published books as well. I agree there are good and bad on both sides. I read some that I couldn't help but think what the publisher was thinking to spend actual money printing it, and I have read some self-published that I was glad I only spent a couple of dollars on. Then I have also read a couple of self-published books that I wish could get the bigger audiences because they are so good. But to say one is better than the other...
ReplyDeleteI am a fellow Campaigner and dropped in to say Hi.
Pamela Jo
Hello, I'm a fellow campaigner dropping by to check out your blog. I read your post and I think you bring up some interesting points about self-publishing.
ReplyDeleteSelf-published books do have a stigma of not being quite as good as traditionally published books, but things are changing. More people are purchasing and reading self-published books today than ever before.
The traditional publishing world has been around a lot longer than the self-publishing world and like anything new; it’s going to take some time to become fully integrated.
In any case, I don’t think traditional and self-publishing should be pitted against each other. Like it or not, they are both a part of the industry.
As far as reviewing goes, I believe you should review all books by the same standards regardless of how they were published.
I look forward to learning more about you throughout the campaign. :)
Very thoughtful post. I absolutely agree that self-published books should be reviewed with the same criteria as the traditionally published. While I don't write book reviews, I admit that I read self-published books with a more judgmental eye, expecting mistakes. Shame on me! I'm a fellow campaigner and new follower. Looking forward to reading more of your posts!
ReplyDeleteAmazingly enough, I'm a soon-to-be self-published author who is guilty of being (internally, never publicly) critical of other self-pubbed works. The reason primarily is not the writing, but the editing. I can overlook a typo here and there (heck, they even get through on some of the big-name novels), but consistent problems will make me put the book aside even if I generally like the story. I agree with one of the other comments you got: self-published authors cannot skimp on the editing. An author's eyes alone are NOT enough to fix issues. If self-published authors as a whole make sure they are putting forth their very best product & not rushing, than I believe the image/stereotypes will begin to change for all of us.
ReplyDeleteHi fellow Campaigner, I love your blog, colour and interesting posts. I am new at this so hope to see you around.
ReplyDeleteHi Beth, I couldn't agree with you more! There are some traditionally pubbed books that are not up to snuff, and there are also some indie books that have not been edited well. Then there are some indies that are truly amazing, and have kept me up at night reading.
ReplyDeleteTo say across the board that all indies are second rate is just ignorant!
Honestly, the fine-tuning editing doesn't really matter for the general public. Most people don't know enough about grammar to know if there are errors or not. I'm saying this as someone with a degree in English and editing and teaching experience. Thye mihgt notic teh typos, but people just won't notice, in general, if every comma in the document is in the wrong place. I'm not saying that this excuses a lack of editing; I'm just saying that most people won't, or don't, notice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the general perception among the general non-reading public is that self-published works are self-published because they couldn't cut it. Part of that perception comes from the publishing industry. They want people to think that. Being self-published, I've run into this perception frequently. It just adds another hurtle, a large hurtle, to success as a self-published author.
And just to say it, I didn't self-publish because I couldn't have gone the traditional route; I just refuse to play the stupid games and jump through all the hoops that traditional publishers make writers jump through to get published.
What an insightful post! You juxtaposed the problems, pluses, unfairness, etc. of traditional and self-published books so perfectly. What a great benefit this post is to the blogging and publishing world. Hats off to you!
ReplyDeleteI'm a fellow campaigner - I'm not in your groups, but I wanted the fun of getting to know more writers. It's so great to meet you!
Me and this arctile, sitting in a tree, L-E-A-R-N-I-N-G!
ReplyDeleteGrazi for mkanig it nice and EZ.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great rsueorce this text is.
ReplyDelete