12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course you did not know that. It is a standard technique of authors to spend a lot of time with the first paragraph and the beginning of a book because they know that a lot of people read that in book stores. So you were lucky that the rest of the book held the same standard.

It is not really all that well-known a technique. The majority of authors make the mistake of medium to huge info dumps at the beginning--and yes, this is true of many, many trad authors. The editor's job is to cut the first chapter or two and get to the heart of the story. But there are a lot of writers who think they are writing a great hook even if it says, "She awoke from a dream with a vague feeling of unease and realized she had forgotten to set the coffee maker to start the night before." And then spend 8 paragraphs describing the character making coffee and how important coffee is...while we learn about the color of her robe and where she bought it and how she misses her (divorced husband, late mother, child who moved out, husband who is traveling, cat that died, insert attempt at emotional draw). As if we aren't bored already, we then move to the bathroom scene where we learn her age in the mirror and the color of her hair and gosh, those bags under her eyes...and a continued internal dialogue of why she is (saddened, mad, hopelessly broke, worried, insert small plot device here, but nothing too interesting because author doesn't want to give away too much in the first 3 chapters...)


I cannot tell you how many books I have set aside for this supposed hook you say everyone knows how to write...They are out there in varying degrees. It is a rare mastery of prose that can be description and engaging at the same time, a magic that doesn't occur for an author every time. Nor does it occur for the reader every time, even when the prose doesn't suck terribly. And sometimes those lines come in a flash of no effort, while others you can reword, rearrange...check the thesaurus, overhear a conversation in the grocery story, try that, no it doesn't work, erase the whole thing and realize that the opening is just going to have to start with an ordinary sentence. And you pray the reader will make it to the next one until your brilliance finds its pace all on its own.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

That is a pretty high standard to meet!
If you haven't tried them, I'd recommend Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan and the Revelation Space series by Alistair Reynolds.

I have read a lot of Richard Morgan and read mostly non-revelation space books by Al Reynolds. I also like Ian McDonald, Ken MacLeoad, Geoff Ryman, ...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

It is not really all that well-known a technique. The majority of authors make the mistake of medium to huge info dumps at the beginning--and yes, this is true of many, many trad authors.

Well, I only know about science fiction authors since I go to a lot of sf cons and it is well known among them.

And I would have thought it self evident that you do not start a book with 50 boring pages...

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

AHA! This is interesting. By following do you mean the same old story, same type of stories?

Or something else?

Pretty much. The - "let's milk it for all it's worth" idea. It's exactly what I expect from big publishers, but rather stupidly not what I was expecting from the self-publishing revolution.

I'm being a bit unfair. I'm sure there are many trailblazers in the indie world, and I sometimes stumble across stories that seem quite fresh to me. I was just having an attack of the crankies as I was wading through yet another list of zombie apocalypse novels.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by caleb72

My problem is that in some ways, it's too much like the business it attempts to replace.
.
.
.
I'm having to face the evidence that when given complete freedom of expression and having removed the restrictions of McDonalds publishers, that indie authors have tended to adopt a "follower" model rather than a "leader" model. It's probably unfair of me to think that the reverse was going to be universally true given the individual time and money investment to only maybe get a return, but I had naively hoped.

The gems are there - just have to dig a bit.

Valid point.

But bear in mind that it is very early in the evolution of indie publishing.
Aside from the fact that a lot of the Indie material is actually "reprints"--the backlist of established writers--a lot of the new material is coming from authors trained and ingrained with the limits of traditional print publishing. Just look at the story lengths and the still-prevalent concern with word counts and book length. (Topics already covered round these parts in other threads.)
Because indie publishing is still trying to establish itself as a reputable alternative channel it is (mostly) running on a parallel track to the corporate publishers and to a large extent measuring itself by the same metrics (sales, sales, sales).

This is changing.
We are starting to hear of Indie publishing successes that *don't* necessarily involve selling books by the hundreds of thousands but of reaching under-served audiences, of experimenting with old/deprecated formats (serials, pamphlets), or going places traditional publishing would never go. (A 300,000 word monolithic SF novel by a total unknown? Good luck getting that out in the world without Manhattan or Hollywood connections.)

In the early days, TV was Radio-with-a-camera and Teleplays, plays performed before a single camera. It took a while for the new medium to find its natural voice and its own unique practices and customs. And even now, two generations later, the medium is still evolving new conventions. Like shows with no music themes or intro.
ebooks are not just print books without the pulp; even for narrative text works there is room for new formats, new practices, new genres.

As you say, the majority of authors still haven't internalized the full implications of the new
freedom.
But they will.
The easiest prediction to make is that the old straightjackets of length (short story, novella, novelette, etc) are going to disappear or, better yet, take on new meanings. A lot of the "everybody knows" rules will be successfully challenged and debunked. (Just as, once upon a time, on TV "everybody" *knew* that TV show episodes *needed* to be standalone so they could be run in any order and viewers could jump on an any point in the series or miss one and not be lost. Until Hill Street Blues and STNG proved otherwise and paved the way for BUFFY and 24. Now practically every show runs season long narrative arcs and ends with a cliffhanger or status quo change or both and it is the shows that don't that are the mavericks.)

Indie publishing is terra incognita and for now the pioneers are staying close to what came before and keeping an eye out for what works (and doesn't) for those that stray from the known practices. Is it safe to travel by night? How much food and water does the wagon train carry?

So yes, a lot of what is coming out of indie circles is going to be familiar in form and function. It is too early too expect too much boldness. ("You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs.") And, of course, once somebody proves the market will accept something different, then that will be added to the lore of the business. Everybody will know that you *can* do that.
Just keep in mind that in any activity, true leaders and envelop expanders-- the test pilots, if you will--are few and far between. And have a high mortality rate.

Give it time and keep searching for the odd jewel here and there, I expect you'll slowly see the number of them grow as the industry matures. A few leaders and a bunch of followers is exactly what you would expect at this point in time. And way better than nothing but followers of "old lore". (We have to take our victories where we find them. Baby steps.)


BTW, the need for new ways of thinking and behaving runs both ways; authors and *readers* both need to develop new practices and conventions. And, as near as I can tell, we are.

Things are good but they're getting even better.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by caleb72

Pretty much. The - "let's milk it for all it's worth" idea. It's exactly what I expect from big publishers, but rather stupidly not what I was expecting from the self-publishing revolution.

I'm being a bit unfair. I'm sure there are many trailblazers in the indie world, and I sometimes stumble across stories that seem quite fresh to me. I was just having an attack of the crankies as I was wading through yet another list of zombie apocalypse novels.

Well, we do write what we know and love. So to some extent we are what the market is because we're going to read popular books too. I think we all try to put a fresh spin on it (we think we are) but if you just happened to read four books about earth witches and then pick up Under Witch Moon, it *might* not seem as fresh as I'd like. Then there's the whole competing with the best in a genre. I once saw someone who had just finished a Patricia Briggs novel say mine was up next (This was on GR. I didn't know the person, nor did I follow them so I have no idea how it turned out.) Yanno, I'd rather that person just go read a bad zombie book first...

I do know authors who follow trends, whether it be "YA is hot" or "vamps are hot." But I think most of us are writing what we love about a particular genre. Voice is so important when it comes to fresh because I can read the "the same old story" but if the character is unique or the voice is funny or unique I don't care. Sometimes I don't care even if I know the ending--it's the ride, if it's done in such a way that captivates me.

That said, there do seem to be a lot of tired-looking zombies around. But hey, if you had to crawl out of a grave, you probably wouldn't be too perky either!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, I only know about science fiction authors since I go to a lot of sf cons and it is well known among them.

And I would have thought it self evident that you do not start a book with 50 boring pages...

It's not universal. Not even among "good" works.
I've seen plenty of traditionally published SF&Fantasy books (some really good) that start off slowly, albeit it with a good narrative tone.
It's not just the strength of the hook I judge, but how the inside of te book lines up with the marketting promises of the cover, title, blurb, etc

A bad fit is a red flag; a smooth fit is a good sign.
(A fantasy titled HEROICS FOR BEGINNERS had better be witty and funny and it is. Right from the start.)
"It's a gestalt thing."

Trying to tell if a book is worthy of our reading time (and money) is like the fabled blind men trying to make sense of the elephant; you judge by what you hear and feel and the more inputs you get the better judgment you can make.

But in the end it still is a matter of taste; nobody can say what *must* work for others. Only where their preferences run.

And that is where Mr Franklin and his crowd are wrong; they are projecting *their* preferences and prejudices onto the rest of us.
And we (politely, unlike the FUD-spreaders) beg to differ.

We choose differently than they prefer we would but that is simply because we live in different worlds; what works in one small community does not necessarily apply in the bigger world. And once you move into the digital domain the world gets very big very fast.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

That said, there do seem to be a lot of tired-looking zombies around. But hey, if you had to crawl out of a grave, you probably wouldn't be too perky either!

Right now, zombies work
A lot.
(Probably why they're so tired.)

Next week it might be superhero lawyers that works.
Or a different look at zombies.
Or outright slapstick fantasy.

Not sure what it will be but odds are higher that it'll come out of indie-land while the corporate publishers are racing around looking for the next 50 Shades or Hunger Games clone. (There are still folks maing money out of the Harry Potter Kid-something-or-other meme.)

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Right now, zombies work
A lot.
(Probably why they're so tired.)

Next week it might be superhero lawyers that works.
Or a different look at zombies.
Or outright slapstick fantasy.

Not sure what it will be but odds are higher that it'll come out of indie-land while the corporate publishers are racing around looking for the next 50 Shades or Hunger Games clone. (There are still folks maing money out of the Harry Potter Kid-something-or-other meme.)

I read a lot of UF, but zombies are probably the one part of the genre I haven't embraced (pun intended). I think the only zombie book I've read was one by Amanda Hocking--Hollowmen? Hollowland? I thought it was quite well-done as it's a character-based story of some teens on the run. Zombies are enemy number one. She got a few facts wrong (and I don't mean zombie facts--I mean things like a teenage girl heaving a car battery at a zombie or dripping basements in Nevada) but the story *moves* and is compelling.

Zombies don't interest me much. Vamps as a love interest? Are you CRAZED? The guy is dead. And who is going to take out the trash in the morning? And does he have a job? Because the whole idea of a woman going to work all day Kicking Ass and taking names, who then comes home to some dead loser without a job just doesn't cut it.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Zombies don't interest me much. Vamps as a love interest? Are you CRAZED? The guy is dead. And who is going to take out the trash in the morning? And does he have a job? Because the whole idea of a woman going to work all day Kicking Ass and taking names, who then comes home to some dead loser without a job just doesn't cut it.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not universal. Not even among "good" works.
I've seen plenty of traditionally published SF&Fantasy books (some really good) that start off slowly, albeit it with a good narrative tone.

Take Peter F Hamilton for example....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's not universal. Not even among "good" works.
I've seen plenty of traditionally published SF&Fantasy books (some really good) that start off slowly, albeit it with a good narrative tone.

Well slowly is not automatically bad. What you need in the beginning in some kind of hook that makes people continue to read. But a hook does can very well be something that start off slowly.

I am now reading the Hugo nominated novels and both Scalzi's Redshirts and Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon had a start that was better than the whole book. For me that is very common.

Of course I suspected that Scalzi's book would not hold up since it seemed to be a one joke book. But only going on the first pages it started very promising.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Vamps as a love interest? Are you CRAZED? The guy is dead. And who is going to take out the trash in the morning? And does he have a job? Because the whole idea of a woman going to work all day Kicking Ass and taking names, who then comes home to some dead loser without a job just doesn't cut it.

I'd love to see a story with a guy being stalked by a Vamp. He keeps telling her "I'm not a necrophilliac!" but she just won't be ignored.
Throw in ever Vamp and action flick cliche in, for laughs, and it might do to vampire romances what BLAZING SADDLES did to westerns. Kill them for a generation.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well slowly is not automatically bad. What you need in the beginning in some kind of hook that makes people continue to read. But a hook does can very well be something that start off slowly.

I am now reading the Hugo nominated novels and both Scalzi's Redshirts and Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon had a start that was better than the whole book. For me that is very common.

Of course I suspected that Scalzi's book would not hold up since it seemed to be a one joke book. But only going on the first pages it started very promising.

So are you saying that those books didn't meet your standards? But aren't they traditionally published? Nominated for awards? I thought you implied that your method of choosing would effectively weed out "mediocre" books?

Shari

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by shalym

So are you saying that those books didn't meet your standards? But aren't they traditionally published? Nominated for awards? I thought you implied that your method of choosing would effectively weed out "mediocre" books?

Earlier in this thread, the focus seemed to be on weeding out books that did not meet minimal standards of spelling and grammar. These standards are pretty much objective, and many of us rely on the traditional publishers to provide books that meet these standards.

But matters of taste are subjective. The publishers are the first filter for basic competence in storytelling, but of course they're not the only filter.

I dislike entire genres of writing, but I'm not going to claim that that means all the books in those genres are mediocre or poorly written.