Kindle #s: Traditional Vs. Self Publishing -- Blog posting by JA Konrath

[LeeGoldberg]

It's also, quite simply, a way to have your book read. Why else write? Certainly not to stick your novel in a drawer. Writers write so readers can read.

Maybe so, but not all books are worth reading...or ready to be read. It's ultimately harmful for writers to publish stuff that isn't ready for primetime, so-to-speak. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake... as well as a bad financial investment.

Lee

[Kristen Tsetsi]

There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published.

But the overwhelming majority of self-published books do not meet certain minimum standards in regard to narrative, editing, and overall quality. I know this because I've been forced to read a lot of them, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Nor do a lot of other art forms. In a gallery, movie theater, or on a sidewalk.

But you don't seem to see as many people speaking out against that type of independent artist - so, why writers? If the work is good, it's good. If it isn't, it isn't. Many people will tell you they've read a lot of unreadable stuff in a bookstore.

You're right, though - probably not as much as you'd read in a self-published warehouse of books. However - that a book is self-published doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or substandard, and to judge it as such, or to assume anything not picked up by a traditional publisher isn't readable, is a kind of prejudice.

Once a traditional publisher is involved, it's a pretty good assurance a minimum standard is met.

I'm too nice of a person to give you a list of books that are  published and probably never should have been, but you know there are a lot of them out there.

But no self-pubbed writer believes their work is sub-par.

Nor does any traditionally published writer - no matter how many might disagree. Publishers guess - that has already been established - and sometimes something they think will be huge is little more than a huge flop. So, who's right in that case?

[Kristen Tsetsi]

I am not against writers -- far from it. I encourage writers to never give up and to continue honing their craft. That doesn't mean flushing your money down the toilet, and harming your career, by self-publishing your work. What it DOES mean is that you need to learn to accept that some of your stuff might be clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable or utter crap...and to learn from it and move on. It means learning how the business works, what the professional standards are, and accepting the reality that there are no shortcuts to publishing success.

I am trying to warn writers away from vanity press vultures who prey on the desperation and gullibility of aspiring authors by conning them with lies and false hope. And I am trying to stop unpublished novelist from making an expensive and embarrassing mistake that, in most cases, will do them far more harm than good.

Lee

I sort of doubt implying (okay, outright saying) that most, if not all, self-published writing is "clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable utter crap" is helpful. It's not helpful standing by itself, anyway. Agreed: there are some people who should either recognize their limitations or be told they need improvement. This is true in all creative endeavors, no?

Why not accept that, as in any art form you can imagine, whether published or unpublished, the good stuff is hard to come by, and traditionally published or not, good is good and the readers will decide?

Again, self-publishing isn't expensive at all if it's not done through a vanity press that charges a lot, and there's actually a lot to learn from self-publishing (formatting, marketing, the difficulty involved in all of it). You'd think if you want to help people understand the publishing industry and the difficulty of having their writing accepted, one way to do that would to be to encourage them to self-publish something. That way, their first "amateurish crap" is out there where no agent or editor will see it, the author will learn something about the process and about rejection (maybe) from readers, and when her or his next, and better, work is done, they'll be able to go into the querying process with a greater understanding of it all.


What you're writing here doesn't sound helpful or aimed at the best interests of others at all. Just so you know. Your tone is one that suggests either anger, resentment, fear, or something else opposite of "concerned."

[Betsy the Quilter]

I'd certainly be interested if you posted your own buying habits. How many of your recent purchases were self-pubbed vs. traditional pubbed? If you judge covers and read samples, are you finding that the self-pubbed are just as good as traditional pubbed? And how big a factor is price, since self-pubbed on Kindle seems to have a lower price than traditional published books? How much of it is based on recommendations, reviews, or blurbs posted on forums?

I think a 1/3 to 1/2 of the books I've most recently read on my Kindle (all purchased) have been by self-published or independent authors, as you prefer.  Of them, the best was as good as most traditionally published books I've read.  The worst was definitely amateurish.  The rest in the middle somewhere, probably on average not quite as good as the average traditionally published book I've read.  But to tell the truth, when I'm laying out $10 to $30 dollars, depending on paperback or hardback, and using up some of my valuable shelf space, I don't take many chances and tend to buy authors I know.  I take more chances on the books I'm buying for my Kindle.

One of the joys of the Kindle is the sample feature.  I've been able to avoid clearly loser books by checking out the sample.  As Lee said, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and if I sample the book and it's full of errors or just really bad (and I've found some of those), I don't buy it.

Word of mouth and reviews here on the forums has played some part in my buying choices, too.  Which to me is not unlike basing buying choices on the NYTimes list of books, or USA Today, or People magazine.  It's word of mouth.  (And I'm not equating NYTimes Review of Books with People Magazine's book reviews, LOL!)

Betsy

[RedAdept]

About 80% of my purchases are now Indie books. 

I have found some true gems and I have found some of your "clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable utter crap" and some that are in the middle.

I agree with Kristen that writers can learn from self-publishing on the Kindle by seeing reader responses. However, they do need to be ready to learn.

I have heard statements like these from more than one author whose books I could not finish, "Oh, if you could just get past the middle/beginning/one part, the ending/rest is really good."  Those authors are not 'learning'. It's like they are saying, "Hey, I know some of my book is garbage, but try to get past that."

The ones who get angry when I point out editing errors are not learning, either.  They think readers should overlook the fact that those errors take away from the reading experience.

I have had my reviews torn apart and responded to with, "Oh, I meant to do this or that." Or, "Here, let me explain what I meant to write."  Well, I am not the be-all, end-all, but if more than one person didn't 'get it', then the author didn't actually write what they 'meant to write'. If the author must explain what they meant to more than a couple of people, then something is wrong or missing.

Editing is highly underrated with some Indie books. When I state that "25% of this book should have been edited out", I am not saying that it was filled with grammatical/spelling errors, nor am I saying that the writing in those segments were poor. I am stating that a professional editor would have advised an author to cut those portions that are extraneous and do not forward the story or character development. 

Don't get me wrong. No author should take any one reviewer's opinion as law. However, no one will learn if they can't accept constructive criticism.  Indie Publishing to the Kindle should be looked on as a learning experience, not just a way to sell books.

[Betsy the Quilter]

There's a certain element of human nature in here, as I see some of the same behaviors in the quilting field.  Quilts that are poorly constructed, with no care given to technique and how it supports the vision.  And those quilters say "technique doesn't matter, just the story I'm trying to tell." (Yes, we talk in those terms, too  )  But if the poor construction prevents the viewer from seeing the artist's vision, then it DOES matter.   People can get so caught up in their project that they can't really see it anymore.  And this happens to major players, too.  In the movie industry, there have been some real and total dogs made by major studios with major directors....

Betsy

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Maybe so, but not all books are worth reading...or ready to be read. It's ultimately harmful for writers to publish stuff that isn't ready for primetime, so-to-speak. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake... as well as a bad financial investment.

Lee

I missed this one, Lee - just want to comment on a quick thing:

"You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake..."

That's my point, though. It doesn't matter whether you're saying it about my self-published work - it's that it's being said in a way that tends to encompass all self-published work, which helps perpetuate the myth that all self-published work is substandard when (clearly) it isn't.

Indie work (in literature, anyway) already has a hard enough time breaking through two critical barriers: 1. People (like you) who judge it immediately based on its publication method 2. Reviewers who won't read it because of its publication method.

Once that indie work has been reviewed, however - once it's gained the kind of attention usually only afforded to traditionally published work - isn't it time to accept that it's possible for publishers to miss something readers will enjoy?

And, taking that into account, isn't it also fair, then, to say it may not be in the best interests of the author to discourage them from utilizing a method of publication that will introduce their work to readers and critics who will enjoy it?

[Jack Kilborn]

Nor do a lot of other art forms. In a gallery, movie theater, or on a sidewalk.
But you don't seem to see as many people speaking out against that type of independent artist - so, why writers? If the work is good, it's good. If it isn't, it isn't. Many people will tell you they've read a lot of unreadable stuff in a bookstore.

That's because it is awfully hard to be "tricked" by other art, and that the learning curve for other art is more obvious.

For the average reader, a book is a book, and a painting is a painting, no matter who the artist is. But in the case of a painting, you know EXACTLY what you're buying, because the art is there on the canvas, which you can view immediately. Writing needs to be purchased before it can be experienced, and if the books sucks, the buyer gets stuck with garbage.

In the case of movies, people do get tricked. Blockbuster Video is filled with low budget direct-to-DVD crapola that sells because the cover art is good. But even the worst independent movie at Blockbuster had to meet a minimum quality standard to be bought and distributed by a major studio. Movies, like traditionally published books, involve a team effort to create. It takes a lot of people working hard.

You're right, though - probably not as much as you'd read in a self-published warehouse of books. However - that a book is self-published doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or substandard, and to judge it as such, or to assume anything not picked up by a traditional publisher isn't readable, is a kind of prejudice.

Yes, it is prejudice. That doesn't mean the prejudice is unwarranted in this case. And why would anyone want to release a work of art where there is an automatic predjudice against it?

I'm too nice of a person to give you a list of books that are  published and probably never should have been, but you know there are a lot of them out there.

No, there aren't. Any traditionally published book meets a minimum standard. Lots of folks--editors, copy-editors, typesetters, cover artists, proofreaders--all work to make it the best it can be, and work isn't picked up by big publishing houses if it doesn't function as a narrative.

Self-publishing is printing. There are no minimum standards required; only a Visa card. Besides the obvious editing and typesetting errors, there are often serious flaws in dramatic structure, such as pacing, hook, rising action, conflict, resolution, and characterization. I've read novels and self-pubbed memoirs with ZERO conflict. You'll never find that in a tradtionally published book.

There are a lot of traditionally published books I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published. It just means I didn't like them. That's subjective opinion, other than objective flaws in a narrative.

Publishers guess - that has already been established - and sometimes something they think will be huge is little more than a huge flop. So, who's right in that case?

The argument of "what is a hit or a flop" is a different argument. Four out of five traditionally published books fail to make a profit. But all five do meet a minimum standard.

I've said many times that the publishing industry is flawed. That's not the point of this discussion. Even with its flaws, it's a better route to take than self-publishing--at least at this time.

[Jack Kilborn]

One of the joys of the Kindle is the sample feature.  I've been able to avoid clearly loser books by checking out the sample.  As Lee said, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and if I sample the book and it's full of errors or just really bad (and I've found some of those), I don't buy it.

Thanks for replying. So the next obvious question I'd have is: How many books have you avoided based on the sample feature, and what was the ratio of self-pubbed to traditional pubbed?

[Betsy the Quilter]

I'm wayyyy behind on reading my samples.  I'd say, of the ones I decided not to buy, it was about 50-50 traditional vs self published.  And one of the traditionally published books was one I thought was terribly written AND edited...it was nonfiction and the editing was the reason I decided not to buy it. Typically the reason I decide not to buy after reading the sample, either traditional or self-published, is that the story doesn't interest me.

Betsy

[RedAdept]

I'm not shy about it!  Here are some Traditionally Published books that should not have been published, in not only my opinion, but in the opinions of many other readers:

From a Buick 8, by Stephen King
The latest Dexter book
The latest by Dan Brown

However, I would almost guarantee that the publishers still made money from them due to name recognition. Stephen King could publish his grocery list and people would not only buy it, but line up to do so.

Now, I have been a fan of all three of these authors. So, I am not condemning them. I am posting this because I believe that Publishers are out to make money and, sometimes, they just don't care how they do it. They will continue to print certain authors' work regardless of quality just because people will buy the name.

I'm one of those guilty readers having purchased all three of these. I will also freely admit that I will be pre-ordering King and Koontz' next books as soon as possible, regardless of the fact that I was disappointed in both of their last novels. I loved their earlier works and I am hoping they get back on track. LOL

[Jack Kilborn]

Why not accept that, as in any art form you can imagine, whether published or unpublished, the good stuff is hard to come by, and traditionally published or not, good is good and the readers will decide?

Because, in most cases, the readers never decide because the book doesn't sell beyond family and friends. This leaves the writer confused, upset, and ultimately feeling stupid because they fell for a scam.

I've met self-pubbed authors who really harbor the fantasy that they'll sell a lot of copies. In fact, the only copies they'll sell are those they have a direct hand in selling, face-to-face, at conventions. Many of these people wind up feeling duped and resentful. They thought they'd have the same chance at success as all authors. Instead, they went the quick and easy route and got screwed.

If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed. So you're stuck trying to hawk your books on the Internet and in person, and selling becomes your full time job. An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is. So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.

Again, this isn't always the case. There are exceptions. But you shouldn't base your career on being a longshot exception.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

There are a lot of traditionally published books I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published. It just means I didn't like them. That's subjective opinion, other than objective flaws in a narrative.

Oh, I wasn't talking about personal story preference. There are plenty of traditionally published books that are - objectively - not as good as some self-published work.

The argument of "what is a hit or a flop" is a different argument. Four out of five traditionally published books fail to make a profit. But all five do meet a minimum standard.

Okay - then that conflicts with what you argued earlier in response to what makes a "competent" writer:

Actually, it is founded by the publishing industry, which is set up to profit off of books. Industry professionals are the gatekeepers who decide what is good enough.

Based on that, I determined you believed no profit = no good. In which case, a publisher who purchases a book believing they'll make a profit and then doesn't make that profit means they were wrong, and that the book actually wasn't so good/didn't meet that standard, after all.

I've said many times that the publishing industry is flawed. That's not the point of this discussion. Even with its flaws, it's a better route to take than self-publishing--at least at this time.

"Better" for whom? In what way?

You assume everyone has the same goals you have. But they don't.

And that's okay.

[RedAdept]

Because, in most cases, the readers never decide because the book doesn't sell beyond family and friends. This leaves the writer confused, upset, and ultimately feeling stupid because they fell for a scam.

If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed. So you're stuck trying to hawk your books on the Internet and in person, and selling becomes your full time job. An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is. So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.

I think we have been talking about two different animals here. You seem to be consistently referring to what I have heard called "Vanity Publishing" where someone charges the author to have copies of their book printed.

I have been talking about publishing to the Kindle, which is free.

By publishing to the Kindle, Indie books ARE getting read outside of friends and family. I try very hard to make that happen for some of them with my blog. A few authors have contacted me and said their sales went up after appearing on my blog; that's not from friends and family.

Not only do I find books by forum posts, I also search Amazon for Indie books. So, doesn't having it on the Kindle bring in many, many more readers than the publishing you are talking about?  What is the risk involved there?

[MariaESchneider]

Joe--

Just a note.  I read your "The List" because you were already a published author so I assumed a certain level of story telling, if not quality.  I read it when it was a free download.  I also reviewed it and mentioned it to others.  I think one of the reasons you're seeing more downloads now is the Kindle makes the experience of downloading easier--and the reading is easier as well.  When I read it (and you may recall this) I sent you a rather long list of typos, which I know you corrected.    Yes, I am tattling on you.  You too, learned from the self-publishing model.  I did recommend The List to other readers--in fact, I think it is a more entertaining book that your Jack Daniel's series (and they are not bad books; I'm just saying I enjoyed The List more!)  

It could be that your self-published books are doing well on Kindle because they are good books and people find them entertaining.  The publishing industry missed completely on these books; I know you attempted to sell them traditionally.  They are a completely different category than your other work--a different audience.  For whatever reason, your publisher chose not to market them.  I do think that both you and Lee are able to sell more self-published/backlist works because you already HAVE a reputation (sorry, I don't buy your, "but they were free before from my website" argument.  Lots of people don't go to author websites and I for one, would not have downloaded your freebie except for the fact that I had already read your traditionally published work.)  There's no way to prove my theory, but I think word of mouth is working for you--but I also think the fact that you've been published is helping you a hell of a lot.  

I agree that going traditional is probably the best way.  But I think that there are a number of books that are "good enough" that publishers just don't have room for.  These books will get read and have small followings, but will never get picked up by traditional publishers.  They are just another book--good, decent reads and there isn't shelf-space for them.  For the right price, some readers will be happy to read them.  Self-publishers need to go into the "Business" knowing where they fit and understand the limitations.

I was a reviewer for years.  I read a few self-published books.  I read a lot of industry books.  Yes, there is GENERALLY a minimum standard that at least includes most grammar, spelling and whatnot.  This is where people can be assured that they get a minimum.  As for the entertainment part, I think the key is that people will take chances on finding that entertainment if the price is right.  If they pay a few bucks to try a novel and it isn't their thing--they aren't even angry about it.  

Maria

[Jack Kilborn]

Typically the reason I decide not to buy after reading the sample, either traditional or self-published, is that the story doesn't interest me.

This is where it gets complicated. As a writer who teaches writing, there are many reasons why the story doesn't hook a reader. In most traditionally published fiction, it is because the reader doesn't care for the subject matter. I contend that in the majority of self-pubbed work, the quality of the work is the main reason the story was rejected by the publishers in the first place.

Is this subjective? Maybe. I'm pretty good at spotting a hook, but the layperson may not be even aware of what a hook is, only that some books grab them and others don't.

With ebooks, we're moving toward a publishing model where writers don't need traditional publishers. Without this vetting process, the overall quality of work will go down. But this even playing field will made bestsellers out of indie authors. I applaud that. I'm thrilled to be able to compete in sales with big names who have huge marketing campaigns, because my books have never gotten a huge marketing campaign.

But it also took me over a million written words to hone my craft to the point where it was publishable. I didn't stick my first book, or even my fourth book, up on Kindle, and I never will because they aren't good enough. It took me a long time to figure out they weren't good enough. I had to leanr a lot to understand why I'd gotten so many rejections. If I'd bullheadedly self-published my first few novels, I would have done myself a grave disservice.

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Jack - agreed. People are taken advantage of every day in any number of ways. It's unfortunate, but it happens - it happens to anyone who wants to "believe." But, so what?

If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed.

Right. But, if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'

That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.

If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)

An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is.

yeah, but even those who are published traditionally suffer from this delusion. Eh.

So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.

Really? It didn't seem so difficult for N. Frank Daniels. Many indies build a fan base with their self-published work. They also learn a little about marketing themselves, which is something they'll have to do even if they're picked up by a traditional publisher. Sounds like a win-win.

Again, this isn't always the case. There are exceptions. But you shouldn't base your career on being a longshot exception.

Correct. Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.

[Jack Kilborn]

Oh, I wasn't talking about personal story preference. There are plenty of traditionally published books that are - objectively - not as good as some self-published work.
 

Actually, there aren't. This is your opinion. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Self-pubbed books often have objective flaws that have to do with narrative structure. You won't find traditionally published books that fail to meet this minimum standard.

Okay - then that conflicts with what you argued earlier in response to what makes a "competent" writer:
 

How so?

Based on that, I determined you believed no profit=no good. In which case, a publisher who purchases a book believing they'll make a profit and then not making a profit means they were wrong, and the book actually wasn't so good/didn't meet that standard, after all.

If a publisher loses money, it means they gambled and lost. There are no sure things. But the books they pick to publish have better odds than the ones they reject. If they didn't, self-published books would sell in much higher quantities than they do now. And even a "flop" will sell a lot more books than just about every self-pubbed book.

If your goal is to find readers, you'll find a lot more by being traditionally published. If your goal is to make money, you'll make more being traditionally published--at least in 2009. We'll see what happens with ebooks in 2010...

[Jack Kilborn]

I'm not shy about it!  Here are some Traditionally Published books that should not have been published, in not only my opinion, but in the opinions of many other readers:

I've read a lot of books by big names that I didn't like. In fact, I call this "bestseller syndrome" because some authors can get so popular they indeed can publish anything, and often it isn't nearly as good as their earlier books.

But this is still opinion. If you don't like something, it isn't the same as "it should have never been published." Those three books you mentioned--and I'm sure we could both come up with a list of their flaws--still do meet the minimum criteria for narrative structure. They still were professionally edited. And millions of people do like them.

Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Actually, there aren't. This is your opinion. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Self-pubbed books often have objective flaws that have to do with narrative structure. You won't find traditionally published books that fail to meet this minimum standard.

Are you saying editors at publishing houses are both infallible and robotically objective?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If a publisher loses money, it means they gambled and lost. There are no sure things. But the books they pick to publish have better odds than the ones they reject. If they didn't, self-published books would sell in much higher quantities than they do now. And even a "flop" will sell a lot more books than just about every self-pubbed book.

Which has little to do with the book itself and more to do with the money and clout a big name publisher has. If a publisher released a god-awful book at the same time an exceptional self-pub book released, the one released by the publisher would do better because of their marketing money and sales channels. Period.

If your goal is to find readers, you'll find a lot more by being traditionally published. If your goal is to make money, you'll make more being traditionally published--at least in 2009. We'll see what happens with ebooks in 2010...

Actually, you won't find readers if you don't release your book. You'll get MORE readers with a trad publisher, but you'll get zero readers if you take the publisher as the word of God and don't release the writing yourself.

[Jack Kilborn]

I think we have been talking about two different animals here. You seem to be consistently referring to what I have heard called "Vanity Publishing" where someone charges the author to have copies of their book printed.
I have been talking about publishing to the Kindle, which is free.

I believe the Kindle is a vanity press that authors don't have to pay for.

That said, you've managed to fill a very important niche with your reviews, and I applaud you for it.

[RedAdept]

I've read a lot of books by big names that I didn't like. In fact, I call this "bestseller syndrome" because some authors can get so popular they indeed can publish anything, and often it isn't nearly as good as their earlier books.

But this is still opinion. If you don't like something, it isn't the same as "it should have never been published." Those three books you mentioned--and I'm sure we could both come up with a list of their flaws--still do meet the minimum criteria for narrative structure. They still were professionally edited. And millions of people do like them.

Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?

You are correct that it is 'opinion'. However, I chose to list those three because the 'bad reviews' for each of them pretty much say the same thing. Stephen King's book has no ending, Dan Brown's book has plot holes and is a regurgitation of his previous books, and the newest Dexter does not protray his character with the same personality as past books, ie, he's stupid in the new one.

I wasn't comparing any of them with the Indie books I have reviewed with one or two stars. I was comparing them with the Indie books I have erad that are 4 and 5 stars.

[Jack Kilborn]

When I read it (and you may recall this) I sent you a rather long list of typos, which I know you corrected.  

Thanks for that, Maria.

Remember though--The List was on my website for years as a free download. It's still a free download. And in my afterword, I do state the book has never been traditionally published.

The only reason I got started with Kindle in the first place was because Kindlers emailed me, because they wanted to read it but couldn't convert the pdf file. So I put it on Kindle, but Kindle wouldn't let me release it for free. So I charged two bucks, and now I'm making a nice chunk of change. Funny how things work out...

[Kristen Tsetsi]

Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?

This is where your argument gets lost - you're taking the worst of the industry and treating it as if all self-pubbed work is like this. Why so negative?

It's the same as saying, "Why would you pay to watch an indie movie, sight unseen, when you know talentless hacks are making videos in their basements?"

I mean, you're going to find creative people who aren't good at what they're doing and who play around with it. But why would you want to degrade the effort itself by using  the worst of the worst as an example when it's obvious there are talented and skilled writers (not "sellers," but "writers") producing good work?

Also, I'd love it if you'd address these points:

... if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'

That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.

If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)

Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.

[Ann in Arlington]

Why do I buy/not buy works published by major imprints?  I've usually read a review or description and decided, based on my past experience with the reviewer, that I would or would not likely enjoy the book.  In the case of an author I try and really like, I put the name on my list and watch for additional books by that person.  I'll probably buy the next couple that come out and if they strike a chord I'll keep 'em on my 'must buy' list.  In the case of one I decide I don't like, I probably won't try again.  And if one I do like at first stops appealing. . . .well, after a few I don't like as well, I take 'em back off my 'must buy' list.  Actually, that list is really pretty short.  

Why do I buy/not buy works published independently?  Almost never did before Kindle -- I did not know they existed!  Then, I learned here that there are a lot of folks writing decent books that just don't fit into the categories that major publishers seem to want.  And I've found many really good books -- a few I'd even call great -- and when I read one, I will -- as with 'name' authors -- buy more of the person's books if I like it, and won't if I don't.

But why did I click in the first place?  Admittedly, price is a factor. . . .I am thrilled to death that there are good reads available for just a few dollars!  I've also gotten a couple that were not even worth a few cents -- rest assured, I will not buy those authors again.

But, you know, the biggest reason I decided to try (or not) a book is because I got to know the author from his/her posts at KindleBoards.  I will freely admit that I have purchased books from some authors here that I didn't think I'd really care for -- outside my usual preferred genre, etc. -- because I liked them as people.  In most cases I've at least been happy with the quality of writing, even in cases where I didn't care especially for the subject matter.

Flip side of that coin:  there are authors who post here whose books I will not buy because I haven't been able to like them as persons, based on their posts.  Yep: I might be missing the next best thing.  And some other members here rave about their books.  But I don't like them. . . .and I don't want to read their stuff.  Subjective?  Absolutely!  Some might even say whether I personally like the author is irrelevant.  Oh, well.

But you know what:  I can also change my mind.  There are authors here who (in my opinion, ONLY) came across at first as obnoxious, self important, and pushy.  Totally turned me off and I swore I'd ignore their threads completely. . . . .but the longer I'm here, the more I learn about people ('cause maybe I see them frequently in forums other than the Bazaar) and after a while I see that they are good people, enthusiastic -- even passionate, and totally not trying to do anything more than share their love of writing.   Turns out they love margaritas and cake, cry at sad movies, drink unique coffee or tea, make fancy rice, pop in frequently with a pleasant 'good morning' or 'good night', share about personal sadnesses, and rejoice with everyone else's little 'bumps'.  At some point I start to think of this person or that person as a friend. . . . . so if they have a book they've written, I'm going to give it a try!  

So, I guess the message to indie authors here:  you'll catch me quicker with chocolate and margaritas than p*ss and vinegar.