Seperating the Wheat from the Chaff

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by tompe

You gave them as example of authors that was not offered to you by the traditional publishing industry.

They weren't. Kelly Link's short collection was published by a boutique outfit, a small press, not a traditiona Big-12l publishing house, same for Rosenblum. The publisher is small beer press http://smallbeerpress.com/.

You're using selective quotes and being highly disengeniuos. Here is what I originally said:

So far this year, through Feedbooks alone, I've been introduced to:

Kelly Link, Benjamin Rosenblum, Small Stories, Nick Name, Moxie Mezcal (brand new find, only today). The traditional publishing industry has very little to offer me that I can't find with the independents or what some would so derisively call "self-published".

Nowhere did I say that Kelly Link or Benjamin Rosenblum were 'independent' authors. In fact I made no such statement, even though the downloads I gained from Feedbooks were published in their pbook formats by indie publishers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

....

I also want to read only good books, not just OK books, but I don't think the traditional publishers have any more of a grasp on what is great and what is OK than do I when I make my own decisions on the culture I obtain.

And you are certainly welcome to have and express that opinion, but it's wrong. The whole purpose of the publishing industry is and was two-fold. 1 - to make money and 2 - to publish the best work the can. The two are not mutually exclusive. Now admittedly 'best' can be defined in any number of ways and your 'best' may not be my 'best' but the job of the publisher is to optimize 'best' across the market it is serving and they have done a hell of a job of it for the last 500 years or so.

This is saying nothing of reviews or marketing of course. I tend to discount all marketing myself, but if I find multiple reviewers that seem to agree that a particular book or collection is great then I will certainly check it out. If multiple reviews say the opposite I will likely not bother as my time is too valuable. If the reviews are mixed, but it seems of interest I'll give it a shot as well and read the first few pages, etc. and go from there.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

So, just to be clear then, you don't agree with Sparrow?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And you are certainly welcome to have and express that opinion, but it's wrong. The whole purpose of the publishing industry is and was two-fold. 1 - to make money and 2 - to publish the best work the can. The two are not mutually exclusive. Now admittedly 'best' can be defined in any number of ways and your 'best' may not be my 'best' but the job of the publisher is to optimize 'best' across the market it is serving and they have done a hell of a job of it for the last 500 years or so.

This is saying nothing of reviews or marketing of course. I tend to discount all marketing myself, but if I find multiple reviewers that seem to agree that a particular book or collection is great then I will certainly check it out. If multiple reviews say the opposite I will likely not bother as my time is too valuable. If the reviews are mixed, but it seems of interest I'll give it a shot as well and read the first few pages, etc. and go from there.

You're right on your first point, but you're absolutely batshit insane if you think any of the Big12 are in this game to further literature or even offer 'good'. In the last couple of weeks an ex-glamour model's ghostwritten chick-lit novel was at the top of the publishing lists in the UK. Do not talk to me of 'best' and 'good' when this shit goes on almost daily. Next you'll be assigning some lofty goal of nutrition to McDonalds, or the furthering of knowledge to Microsoft.

Publishing is a business, a business that is owned by other businesses, part of the corporate hegemony that does not now, nor has it ever, had any concern for the creativity it so unashamadely profits from. It's a bottom-line, no thought, please-all-of-the-people all-of-the-time grey wash of nothingness.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Please read more carefully what I write. And agent might read 3 pages and decide that the prose is publishable but that does not mean that the book will be published in the version that is submitted to the editor.
....

Exactly, and it's usually not even the editor that does this, it some contract slush-pile reader who then passed it up the chain where it may or may not be rejected. One it reaches high enough in the foot chain an editor pitches it at a management/publication and it may or may not get past that, it if does, then there is still marketing/profit discussions that might or might not pass muster. If in the end everything looks good the company as a whole will move forward with publishing it -- which may or may not involve extensive editing and rewriting.

To publish on the internet requires none of that. No reviews, no decisions, no editing, just a self-proclaimed writer and a website to upload his masterpiece.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right on your first point, but you're absolutely batshit insane if you think any of the Big12 are in this game to further literature or even offer 'good'. In the last couple of weeks an ex-glamour model's ghostwritten chick-lit novel was at the top of the publishing lists in the UK. Do not talk to me of 'best' and 'good' when this shit goes on almost daily. Next you'll be assigning some lofty goal of nutrition to McDonalds, or the furthering of knowledge to Microsoft.

Publishing is a business, a business that is owned by other businesses, part of the corporate hegemony that does not now, nor has it ever, had any concern for the creativity it so unashamadely profits from. It's a bottom-line, no thought, please-all-of-the-people all-of-the-time grey wash of nothingness.

Thanks for the laugh. It made it abundantly clear to me why I rarely read current "best sellers", unless by an author I already am familiar with. And then I sometimes wonder why I bother.

There is just so much wonderful reading material out there, published years ago, by those who knew how to write. I'm also finding independent authors, thanks to this site, who are more worthy than the claptrap that passes as literary material today.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right on your first point, but you're absolutely batshit insane if you think any of the Big12 are in this game to further literature or even offer 'good'. In the last couple of weeks an ex-glamour model's ghostwritten chick-lit novel was at the top of the publishing lists in the UK. Do not talk to me of 'best' and 'good' when this shit goes on almost daily. Next you'll be assigning some lofty goal of nutrition to McDonalds, or the furthering of knowledge to Microsoft.

Publishing is a business, a business that is owned by other businesses, part of the corporate hegemony that does not now, nor has it ever, had any concern for the creativity it so unashamadely profits from. It's a bottom-line, no thought, please-all-of-the-people all-of-the-time grey wash of nothingness.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly, and it's usually not even the editor that does this, it some contract slush-pile reader who then passed it up the chain where it may or may not be rejected. One it reaches high enough in the foot chain an editor pitches it at a management/publication and it may or may not get past that, it if does, then there is still marketing/profit discussions that might or might not pass muster. If in the end everything looks good the company as a whole will move forward with publishing it -- which may or may not involve extensive editing and rewriting.

To publish on the internet requires none of that. No reviews, no decisions, no editing, just a self-proclaimed writer and a website to upload his masterpiece.

And your point would be that somehow that old-fashioned chain of command somehow brings us better literature? That somehow, just because a writer foregoes that whole dying process, they're somehow not worthy of your time? Well, here's the newsflash, us "self-published" authors don't give a tinkers cuss for readers like you and yours. We don't want you as readers. We don't care if you read our "masterpieces". You are not the readers we want. Go back to the mainstream with you, they have lots of pretty things for you to buy, and they'll sell them to you too, at cost of course. They'll tell you what to read, because it seems that you can't make that decision for yourselves.

Us "self-published" authors want readers who can think for themselves. We want the open-minded, the ones who would throw up a middle finger to the old and embrace the new. We want passionate people, we want people who think of reading as more than just something to 'kill time'. That's who we put our passions out there for. That is why we write. That is who we write for.

We do not write for you.

We do not need you.

We do not want you.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're right on your first point, but you're absolutely batshit insane if you think any of the Big12 are in this game to further literature or even offer 'good'. ....

....

You are clearly confused. I never said anything about creating literature, but in the past publishing was more in that vein. Yes publishing is a business and more money is to be made if a great book is published than if a good book is published. It's quite simple really.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You are clearly confused. I never said anything about creating literature, but in the past publishing was more in that vein. Yes publishing is a business and more money is to be made if a great book is published than if a good book is published. It's quite simple really.

And you're confusing great with something that sells a lot of copies. Dan Brown is not great, but he does sell a lot of his shit.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And your point would be that somehow that old-fashioned chain of command somehow brings us better literature? That somehow, just because a writer foregoes that whole dying process, they're somehow not worthy of your time? Well, here's the newsflash, us "self-published" authors don't give a tinkers cuss for readers like you and yours. We don't want you as readers. We don't care if you read our "masterpieces". You are not the readers we want. Go back to the mainstream with you, they have lots of pretty things for you to buy, and they'll sell them to you too, at cost of course. They'll tell you what to read, because it seems that you can't make that decision for yourselves.

Us "self-published" authors want readers who can think for themselves. We want the open-minded, the ones who would throw up a middle finger to the old and embrace the new. We want passionate people, we want people who think of reading as more than just something to 'kill time'. That's who we put our passions out there for. That is why we write. That is who we write for.

We do not write for you.

We do not need you.

We do not want you.

And that's why you will never make it. You don't care.

And I am absolutely sincere about that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And you're confusing great with something that sells a lot of copies. Dan Brown is not great, but he does sell a lot of his shit.

No I'm not. You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder about the publishing industry. I don't suppose you've been rejected a few times, eh?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Iffy!!! Iffy!*?! That's the first line from Fahrenheit 451. in a single sentence he encapsulates the motivation of a whole character, a flow for a novel and does it while drawing you into the story. Iffy!!!!???? As far as first lines go that's up there with "Call me ishmael" for brilliance.

Iffy?!!!??

Nah, I am not drawn into the story - I have no idea what is being burned, or why. At this stage I'm still unengaged - we could be going anywhere, it achieves nothing beyond being yer standard (hackneyed?) teaser opener.

The sort of first sentence SF in particular is replete in.

[kennyc]

I clearly see moejoe's stance, position, attitude, but am still very interested in others thoughts on this matter.

I think it's very telling the direction wikipedia seems to be headed and fits right in with the thought.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And that's why you will never make it. You don't care.

And I am absolutely sincere about that.

Make what? Money? I already make enough money to live. Is that your metric for success, or is it readers? How many readers do I need to make it, you think? And how many must I lose to make it, would you suppose?

FYI, I've already made it, thankyou very much. I can walk away from my writing tomorrow (I won't) and I'll do that with a big smile on my face because I've written my work from the heart and I've not bowed down to anybody in the creation of that work.