Just to make it clear: The punk movement was a protest movement, mostly directed at the very "note-rich" music of the moment, where it seemed that the more notes you could squeeze in on your guitar per minute, the cleverer you were considered. Punk was in reality a "back to basics" movement, where focus came back to the essentials: melody & lyrics. As in all protest movements, they weren't all equally good at it!
The parallel to the business of writing would be that also non-academics can write excellent books and that a book can be brilliant without a literary reference on every page. Again, it's not qualifying to be "self-publishing", but neither is being published, if you don't mind me saying so...
All that said, the sentences quoted are utter rubbish!

My response to the comment is simple. "I am a science fiction reader, but I won't be reading your book." And then I would probably add some profanity and note that punk rock is awesome.

If you know next to nothing about punk rock, you'd best avoid being annoyed by references to it. Your blog does nothing except display your own admitted pettiness and ignorance.

I've always believed that the biggest source of bigotry is the inexcusable behavior of a few members of the targeted group. As it is said, "99.99% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name."
I truly believe that self-publishing is and will continue to be a viable alternative. It is so hard for an author to be seen by agents, let alone publishers, and I am convinced that much good work will go unseen unless the author risks the self-publishing route. I have done it twice, and I am convinced that what I have written is excellent -- not garbage. If I had more resources to put into marketing, I am sure that self-publishing would be a tremendous way to get my message out.
hugh@hughellis.com

I feel your pain. The sad thing is: there are a very large number of successful authors founding their own publishing companies, and doing a good job of it. But self-preservation has led to them being invisible, while the clueless newbies sprawl all over the media propagating silly myths.

Unfortunately, this leads many authors who would otherwise have a chance of success to make some very counter-productive moves, AND it makes it very difficult for my clients (small and micro presses) to get the respect and opportunities they deserve. Perhaps if we all keep trying, we can make a dent? (Why, yes, I AM an optimist. Why do you ask?)

Awesome, controversy. By “punk rock” I mean the spirit of much independent-minded music in the seventies through the nineties. If you listen to stuff on SST records, it’s not three notes and screaming. The Meat Puppets “Up on the Sun” comes to mind, or Mike Watt’s bass playing. But it’s still fiercely independent. And so the same can apply to publishing – those writers who are less marketable, but good, will always have an outlet. As I go on to say in the interview, “no one is locked out.” That’s what I’m getting at.

About science fiction: if you write science fiction, then you’re a science fiction writer. No. There’s a difference between Heinlein, Philip K. Dick, Arthur C. Clarke, etc. etc. and someone who’s just writing in the genre for one book out of many – like Big as Life by E.L. Doctorow. I don’t think you’d call E.L. Doctorow a science fiction writer.

My point is that self-publishing allows me to be more independent-minded in how I approach work – I don’t have to rely on the market. And not being an Asimov type of sci-fi writer, the mainstream publishing industry might be more confused about how to market the book. But that shouldn’t stop me from writing what I want to write.

All in all, doesn’t seem like an attitude to inspire “hate” of self-publishers.

Will you take a chill pill if I remind you that Nathaniel Hawthorne's first book was a self published novel? (It didn't sell, but he went on to become a standard of American literature.)

In general - "anyone CAN do anything" now days - as many in our keyboard and lens toting society will attest to. The real question might be: Can they be successful and at the same time create something of lasting value?

Punk Rock: Simple yes, melodic -- well, some but not all. More like loud, young and snotty.

>>>More like loud, young and snotty.

Better than dithering, near-death, and clueless any day. Which is an apt description of the current Publishing Matrix. (Ah, "I Can Haz Cheezburger," the pinnacle of bookdom!)

For what it's worth, the "anyone can do it" would not offend anyone in punk rock: it was one of the core tenets of the movement. People would pick instruments they could barely play and get by on intensity and/or shambolic charisma. Or, quite often, just suck.

I always thought the idea of punk rock got perverted down the years. The ethos was anyone can START a band even if they don't know how to play, but somewhere down the line it seemed to become anyone can BE IN a band especially if they don't know how to play. The Clash, X and the members of the Sex Pistols actually grew as musicians (well not so much Sid, but definitely Lydon & Matlock), and 80s bands like Black Flag and the minutemen progressed the genre. Somewhere in the '90s, though, it seemed like a lot of the bands at clubs I was seeing didn't get it that while it was OK to be raw, you really should be getting better as you are doing something.

Self publishing is taking on a new shape. As one who makes a living as a self published novelist I can say that the benefits of having direct control over your work, your marketing and how you communicate with your partners can outweigh the drawbacks if you take some time and build relationships with good people who believe in what you’re doing.

It’s slow. People frown when they discover you’re “one of those self published authors” and you’re left to do most of the marketing work on your own.

It’s rewarding. I don’t pay a penny for self publishing. Not one penny. Every day after I’ve finished writing I go to work on getting the word out to more people about what I’m doing. As I’m working I discover book reviews, emails from readers, and sometimes there even a terrible book offer to turn down. I’ve had two, they were both, well, terrible.

I’m at the point now where some success in Europe, a place I’ve never visited but would like to someday, is starting to cross over into the USA. The work continues and I absolutely love my job. I’m an eBook author, less than 3% of my income comes from print and the few hundred readers who patiently wait for each volume have only experienced my work on screens. They like it that way, the print books are out there, and they’d rather not heft the paper.

Final point: I like going around the publishers. I like making a living on eBooks while the industry can’t find a way to make money on them, or so they say. I enjoy having a decent book out to market in less than 6 months. I also like being directly accountable to my readership. If I put out a bad book, I don’t eat. That’s more critical than any rejection letter I’ve ever received. If you want to see the credibility behind my statements, take a look at the Mobipocket Science Fiction Section. I'll be easy to notice.



This comment was also submitted at the Self Publishing Review. It fit here just as well.

Well, welcome, everyone! I guess I struck a nerve.

Let me continue the analogy above. I have a good friend who's a musician (not a punk rock musician, but a folk musician, a movement that also suffers from people strolling in and thinking that playing three chords puts them in the top 1%). She puts out her own albums. Her work is unclassifiable and she doesn't want to be beholden to record companies. It makes sense for her to be essentially a self-published musician.

Here is the key: Her albums are excellent because she goes out of her way to work with professional producers and make sure that the quality of the finished product is top-notch. I recently bought a CD from a group of musicians I heard playing at a friend's wedding; their music is great but their CD is awful. That attention to and investment in production makes a real difference.

All too often, I see self-published books that seem to have gone straight from manuscript to book with no intervening editorial attention. I think that's a mistake. Hell, even books I see from small presses suffer from bad editing, and I've had more than one reviewer say "This could have been a great book if the editing was better". So when someone declares that they like putting books out in less than six months, I cringe, because those time-consuming steps of editing and copyediting and proofreading and cover design and interior design are kind of important. If you're using self-publishing as a way to get around that editorial process, then I think you're setting yourself up for failure, and you're certainly part of the reason why self-published books have a bad rep in certain circles. I have no doubt that there are self-publishers like my musician friend who hire freelance editors and designers who really know what they're doing, but I've never seen any evidence that such sensible, professional people are in the majority.

And you bet I'd call E.L. Doctorow a science fiction writer. Margaret Atwood and Cormac McCarthy too. Heinlein wrote fantasy; that doesn't make him less of a science fiction writer. I sometimes eat vegetables, but that doesn't make me a vegetarian.

Since when is it common in journalism not to attribute sources? This is the second time this week I've seen a major media outlet not attribute a quote to the person who said it; just a few days ago, in a story about Twitter, the Associated Press quoted John Scalzi without attributing him. Scalzi made a point to mention it in his blog and, perhaps rightfully, called it rather lazy. I don't think I'd argue. I can't imagine you didn't know who originally made the statement you quoted, Ms. Fox.

Then again, if you had attributed it, you might not have been able to say that you don't want to hate self-publishers until they go ahead and say things like it. Except <i>they</i> didn't say it. One guy said it, and it's one guy with whom many other writers would probably disagree.

Which is unfortunate, because there are some other solid points. I get the sentiment with which Mr. Baum states that self-publishing is like punk rock, but I would disagree, as well. In the comments, Mr. Baum elaborates that he means more akin to the independent-minded music produced in the seventies through the nineties, and I don't know if I agree there (I'm not familiar with said music, like the Meat Puppets [?]; I mean, I've heard of the Meat Puppets, sure, but I can't imagine one decides on a name like "the Meat Puppets" with high hopes of mass marketability. Who's going to think a band with a name like the Meat Puppets is any good?), but I think I get the "independent-minded" sentiment.

Not that I agree with it. I mostly don't. Most of the self-published writers I have encountered have published their book with the hope of ultimately getting a contract from a traditional conglomerate publisher. I can't think of a single self-published author I've ever encountered who would turn down a contract from Random House. (Not that Random House is offering.)

I think it highlights the problem with self-publishing; too many authors who use the services are working hard to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of both readers and the media rather than working harder to achieve legitimacy by writing well. It's easy to say there's a lot of bad writing among self-published books, and it's true, but there's a lot of bad writing among books published by conglomerates, too (I'm looking at you, Dan Brown, and you too, Stephanie Meyer).

As for the science fiction versus not-science fiction argument, I think the problem is that the idea of genre is being confused with the idea of marketing. <i>The Yiddish Policeman's Union</i> was an alternate history science fiction novel that won major genre awards (including the Sidewise, the Hugo, and the Nebula), but people don't think of it as science fiction because it was written by Michael Chabon, who had already cemented a strong reputation for good writing by winning the Pulitzer in 2001. Some books become popular enough right out of the gate that nobody worries about genre because people don't use it to market them (<i>The Lovely Bones</i> and <i>The Time-Traveler's Wife</i>, both of which would be fantasy books, come to mind). And none of that even mentions Margaret Atwood.

Not to say it's an easy confusion to avoid. Not when people use words like "speculative fiction," which sounds like something all novels technically are, anyway.

Will, I don't know if you understand much about journalism, but Rose linked to the original source. That's very, very different from what the AP did. And it also is a valid form of attribution.

Will: The quoted sentences are a link back to the original post. I figured that was sufficient to make it clear where they came from.

I think singling out massive bestsellers like Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer as having published "bad writing" is an error. They're extremely good at what they do. That's why their books sell and sell and sell.

I actually agree that all fiction is speculative fiction, because it all invents people or events or circumstances; but that's just one more argument against being snooty about it.

I think Rose's argument is trumped up and phony. I'd have to see those 'quotes' she made up, in FULL context AND, imagine this for editorial ethics, with citations of who, where and when they were said. As they stand, they are pointless, as is her rant about the straw men she made up.

ku: Just click on the quotes and follow the link. I will even reproduce it here for your convenience, though I have to truncate it because our blog software doesn't allow links in comments: tinyurl.com/nhmn24

Feel free to criticize me, but it seems silly to do so on the basis of things I haven't done.

>>>If you're using self-publishing as a way to get around that editorial process, then I think you're setting yourself up for failure, and you're certainly part of the reason why self-published books have a bad rep in certain circles

Agreed. Which is why people -- like Baum -- who are *serious* about authors controlling their own destiny, *do not* say that flinging a manuscript into the marketplace is a good idea.

As for small presses having flaws -- like the "majors" don't? I find typos all the time in NYC books. I had one book that had two pages reversed! Lack of quality control is not something that can be correlated to a publisher's size.

It's worse than I thought. Rose, get a clue. The writer you so cobble quoted, is a man named Henry Baum who was interviewed for the Sacramento News & Review by Melanie Glover about self-publishing. The interview was published in short by the SNR, and Baum has put forth the transcript of the whole interview, which is the one Rose took her out of context quotes from.

The quotes Rose took out of context re about science fiction, and punk make PERFECT sense in context. The man is saying he is not a science fiction writer, per se, but he has made this effort to write a science fiction book. In other words, you know Rose, creative license to experiment. Just like ALL book authors do.

He is also responding to a question asked, by saying he would hope for a scope of different kinds of writing in self publishing-- similar to the many different ways punk music evolved... not by fiction authors trying to copy mainstream fiction writer Koonz, for instance, but to be original (the way punk music broke away from mainstream patterns of what was considered the only kinds of music)

Rose, this was not hard to understand in the interview. I suggest you go get upset about something that really matters. There is still Afghanistan and right where you live, people without adequate food. Go be upset about something that is real and actually matters.

ku: I'm bemused by you taking the time to argue on a blog about whether arguing about things on blogs is worthwhile. If it's a waste of time, why are you doing it?

Mike Cane: I agree that any publisher can let errors through. I think it makes more sense to look at error rates rather than focusing on individual books that do or don't have errors in them. In my experience--and I take a good look at about fifteen books a week from a variety of genre publishers--the bigger the press, the lower their error rate.

Rose, re: the link/attribution: I'm really sorry---I didn't even notice it was a link (I didn't scroll over it). I just thought that was how the blog handled blockquotes. My fault there completely.

Concerning Brown and Meyer: I'm not sure what they do, but I tend to think they sell and sell and sell because they have massive marketing pushes behind them. Didn't Brown, at least, go on a massive tour to booksellers prior to the release date? Like Frazier did with "Cold Mountain"?

I like your response post here, Rose, especially when you continue the music analogy. But in continuing the analogy, don't you bear out the point: different musicians will produce/distribute their music differently. Some will pay more attention to production values and clean sound than others might (some out of ignorance, some out of aesthetic choice). Given that, it's wrong to universally condemn independently-produced music. Though it might be worth pointing out that your friend, who produces her music so well, is an exceptional case; then again, so would be writers who use the technology that allows them to publish their work themselves.

I like that you anticipated Atwood (your post slipped mine), and I appreciate that you would certainly call Doctorow a science fiction writer, but I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority, there. A lot of other people would call him a lot of other things (Pulitzer Prize winner, director of the creative writing program at NYU, massively multi-national best-selling author) before they noted that science fiction was among the many genres he had explored.

I think the essential point that Ms. Fox missed is not that "anyone can write a book." It's that "the tools and technology are there for anyone to be able to present their work to the reading public directly."

Ted is exactly right when he says:

<blockquote>I always thought the idea of punk rock got perverted down the years. The ethos was anyone can START a band even if they don't know how to play, but somewhere down the line it seemed to become anyone can BE IN a band especially if they don't know how to play.</blockquote>

Thus, the readers become the gatekeepers.

In other news! I agree with Henry and Randolph and Mike.

Will: I don't for a minute pretend that this blog has the world's clearest interface. No sweat.

I've seen a lot of massive marketing pushes in my time. I don't think they have the effect that you think they do. Books only sell that much through word of mouth: people reading them, liking them, recommending them. Some of the recommenders have bigger platforms than others--Oprah is the obvious example--but people are clearly reading these books, not just buying them.

I agree that self-publishing is clearly the right path for some writers. "Some of my best friends are self-published", even! As I said in the original subject line, I DON'T want to hate self-publishers. I DO think it's foolish to present it as "anyone can do it", as that implies that everyone who can do it should do it, an implication I disagree with (I'm not at all ashamed of my snobbery here, so no need to call me out on it).

As for Atwood and E.L. Doctorow (I specify to avoid confusion with Cory, who most certainly is and declares himself to be a science fiction writer), I'm quite sure I'm in the minority, but that's the whole point of books like The Secret History of Science Fiction, which I recommend you investigate if you're interested in this sort of thing. Lots of people write science fiction and then claim it's not science fiction or claim they aren't science fiction writers, and it drives me up a tree and makes me froth with rage, and I hammer on it whenever I see it. I know a bit about "passing" to fit in with the mainstream, and all it does is tromp on those who can't or won't pass. Drawing on my culture and then disclaiming association with it is rude to an obscene degree.

Moriah: When have readers ever not been gatekeepers? Readers are the ultimate gatekeepers. In fact, I thought the big advantage of self-publishing was getting away from the notion of pleasing the maximum number of readers.

I read this blog posting, skipped all the comments, and just want to say thank you, Rose, from an editor at a major publishing house, for taking words out of my mouth.
Your post was a pitch perfect (so to speak) summation of everything that is wrong with those two sentences you quoted at the top.

"So when someone declares that they like putting books out in less than six months, I cringe"

A few weeks ago I was at an event where I had a chance to speak with Robert J Sawyer, Hugo award winning Science Fiction books like "Rollback" and "Wake" among many others, eighteen published works to date.

It takes him six weeks on average to complete a 100,000 word book, which is his intentional average and far less than four months to polish it with an editor. If it weren't for the publishing industry slowing the release process down, most of his books would be on the market in under four to six months in eBook format.

Other authors I've had the good fortune to meet and chat with who write for a living are actually finished in under six months, editing included.

It sounds to me like you buy into many time frame myths that are set down by the publishing industry, and you might benefit from actually finding out how long some of your favorite full time authors take to craft what you're reading.

M.J.: That's a fair point. I do think there are reasons for publishers to slow the release process--among other things, it lets them get advance praise from reviewing venues like PW, giving bookstores and libraries time to place preorders that can affect printing numbers--but email and POD and other technologies could save a lot of time. Having been on the "making a book" side of things as well, not as a writer but as a project editor, my guess is that a lot of the slowness comes from publishers working on multiple books at once. If I were my editor's only focus, my book would probably be coming out in spring 2010 instead of fall 2010. I don't mind, though; it gives us lots of time to make sure everything's been done right.

Rose, I look at science fiction from the opposite angle. It's a totally legitimate form of literature and shouldn't necessarily be limited by the genre tag "science fiction." It's just writing, and it's gaining clout through writers like Lethem who straddle the line. It's a good thing if science fiction more and more often "passes" as literature because it expands the audience.

But that's another discussion - or not. Because like self-publishing, science fiction hasn't been taken seriously as an avenue for "serious" writing either.

Back to the topic - I've never advocated that self-publishers shouldn't take their time with editing, book design, and so on. I stress the opposite. Punk had a DIY ethos plus a totally original aesthetic and people knew how to play their instruments - but there were no restrictions, as there are in market-driven publishing.

And to the person above, the Meat Puppets are sort of legendary (to some people). They played with Nirvana during the unplugged session/made seminal records.

Anonymous editor: Thanks for the compliment!

<i><b>Readers are the ultimate gatekeepers.</b></i>

How can they be the ultimate gatekeepers when what they read is pre-screened for them?

They buy what's available. They don't have any say in what's available.

Henry: Ah, we differ on the question of whether labels are limiting. If I say I'm a queer Jewish New Yorker and you say "Why don't you just say 'I'm a person'?", then you may view yourself as helping me get rid of the limitations of my labels, while I view you as limiting the ways that I'm able to express and define myself. Same with genre labels. I don't want my audience expanded to people who have to be fooled into liking my work, any more than I want to only be treated like a human being if I pretend to be straight or Christian.

For that matter, you keep saying "punk"; why not just call it "music"?

Moriah: Again, your assertion that traditional publishing completely ignores the inputs of readers seems to contradict the assertions I've heard elsewhere (including in this comment thread) that traditional publishing panders to the masses. So... which is it?

"readers seems to contradict the assertions I've heard elsewhere (including in this comment thread) that traditional publishing panders to the masses. So... which is it?"

That's a specious argument. If all they have available to them is what's pre-screened, then they buy en masse what's there, of course the business is going to take that as a sign of validation and not step out of those boundaries.

My assertion does not contradict the "conventional wisdom" that publishing panders to the masses. Of course it does. The masses buy what they're given.

I don't know, Anonymous Editor. I don't see the initial post as saying very much of anything about self-publishing, per se. Rather, the complaint seems to be about a couple of lines Rose read in an article and didn't like.

But now that it's become clear the lines were misread, I'm not sure I see an actual argument in this argument.

In an age where big, conglomerate publishers can't afford a single failure and the midlist has been killed off by the narrow hunt for blockbusters and sure things, self-publishing may be the *only* means to mainstream publication for many aspiring authors. When approaching those big houses with a new manuscript from an unknown author:

Truly Original = Unclassifiable = No Sale

Cross-Genre = Unclassifiable = No Sale

Risky = Nonmainstream = No Sale

Controversial = Risky = No Sale

Too Much Like Last Year's Bestsellers = Too Familiar = No Sale

Not Enough Like Last Year's Bestsellers Not Familiar Enough = No Sale

Risk-aversion in the industry is at an all time high, and plenty of manuscripts are rejected purely on marketing concerns. It doesn't matter how much the prose sings, how much the reader identifies with the protagonist, how thrilling the action sequences are, or how perfect the story would be for the movies: if it doesn't look like at least 25K copies sold in the first 6 mos after release, the conglomerates aren't interested.

Now, if the author self-publishes her excellent book, builds a following and generates some buzz and publicity on her own, suddenly the book doesn't look like much of a risk at all. It's a viable, and sensible route to the mainstream for plenty of aspiring authors.

For plenty of others, it's a way of getting their work out there to a readership that may be small by big publisher standards, but it still plenty large enough to sustain one author whose overhead is virtually nil.

Finally - this notion that the majority of self-published books are dreck is, itself, dreck. I recently judged in a self-pubbed books contest for Writers Digest and of the 25 books in my allotment, NONE were truly awful, neither in terms of mechanics or prose. 5 were so strong that I'd gladly recommend them to others as-is, 4 showed great promise but needed some ruthless editing, 2 were well-written enough but had serious story or plotting flaws, and the rest were somewhere in between.

In other words, the breakdown in quality is just about identical to my experience with mainstream-published books.

This is the kind of article that has made Publishers Weekly what it is today. For sale, but unsalable.

Rose, give up defending yourself for writing a pointless straw man article about your petty piques. Just write something decent. PW falls farther and farther behind because readers dont care to read tripe. If you cant see the comments as critique that could be useful to you, and to PW for real content rather than petty opinion by one of its writers, then keep sinking.

Rose: How nice to see someone speaking so articulately about this issue! Your comment above analyzing the value of labels is going into my personal quotes file.

As to self-publishers, I don't want to hate them either, but after seven years of running a genre book-review site I've had it up to HERE with their self-aggrandizing attitude. It's gotten to the point where I not only don't review their books anymore, I don't bother responding to their email (since they don't bother reading our submission guidelines).

I'm new to Genreville, but so far enjoying myself enormously. Keep up the great work!

and Rose,. you can be 'bemused' all you want, and you can also look for the compliments only, but that's not going to make you a better analyst or writer and it's only going to make PW worse. Lots of heads have rolled over there, and for a reason. Relevance. There are clearly more "heads' yet to go. After reading your thrown together post today, and your vapid responses, I'd recommend Publisher's Lunch daily newsletter to readers who want the real news about books, publishers, philosophy of publishing and what really matters about trends in publishing.

ku, what was that about Afghanistan again?

Anyway, I realize that every self-published novelist thinks they were rejected by the NY publishing houses because they were too "controversial" and "truly original" but in truth, it's mostly because they suck.

And don't know it, either. They're living embodiments of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

But of course I don't mean *you,* angry commenter on this blog. *You* really are original and controversial and so on. If only the fools in NY understood what the people *really* want!

For myself, I'm a reader who's grateful for those book filters working in little offices in NY. Do I want to walk out of a bookstore and discover that I've paid hard-earned money for raw slush? Hell, no. NY publishers, please continue to act as a filter between writers and readers.

And I can promise you that innocent readers who've never seen the self-published slush would be grateful, too, if they knew.

What's more, there's a long history of people rejecting the label "science fiction writer" because they think they're too good for it. They thought/think it's beneath them. Is it surprising that long-time readers of the genre would object?

>>>Do I want to walk out of a bookstore and discover that I've paid hard-earned money for raw slush?

What? Come on. You buy a book without opening it and sampling it first? What, the cover attracts you? Or hypnotizes you? What's your buying criteria?

For that matter, how many books or eBooks are offered for sale online *without* a sample chapter? Not damned many!

Mike Cane:

It's a fair question, but I never, ever read sample chapters. I don't even like opening the book in the store and looking over the first page.

Because of the way I read, a newly-purchased book can sit on a shelf for months, sometimes years, before I start it. If I've read a sample chapter, the deja vu feeling will have me wondering if I've already read the book.

You know those teaser chapters at the end of books that are supposed to whet your appetite for the next book? Hate 'em.

A lot of people buy books because they've been recommended. At least, I like to think so, because twice I've bought books that were praised to the ceiling by friends of the author.

For the record, I know very well that "self-published novel" does not automatically mean "wretched novel." However, I've seen so many of them that I won't bother to look for a single nugget of gold in so much countryside. I let publishers do it for me.

Don Linn:
Surely you know the difference between an article and a blog post?
Rose's post (clearly labeled as HER OPINION)does exactly what Publishers Weekly should do: encourage conversation and debate on publishing issues.

>>>It's a fair question, but I never, ever read sample chapters. I don't even like opening the book in the store and looking over the first page.

I see your point. I'm one of those people who will do cover, back cover, and the first sentence/first paragraph to decide.

And yes, many books I read too are via WOM too.

As I understand it, the number one reason anyone buys a novel is "I liked this author's previous book." The number two reason is word of mouth.

Every reason after those is vanishingly small.

I believe self-publishing is the Britain’s Got Talent of the publishing world. No longer is the power to publish in the hands of an oligarchy of elite few. With a reasonably small budget, it is now possible for authors to seize power, control, speed to market, and profitability for themselves. Britain’s Got Talent helped Susan Boyle achieve her dream, and there are people in the publishing industry willing to help develop the Susan Boyle’s of the publishing world—like me.

"It is so hard for an author to be seen by agents, let alone publishers..."

Yes. Exactly. And it should be. makes the writer work harder and produce better, if they really, really want to get published. My track record of enjoyment and satisfaction with traditionally published work is near to 100%, while the same for self-published 'stuff' is near to 0%.
I also find most (most, not all) self-published authors lame attempts at self-promotion to be lame, annoying and counter-productive for the author. Comments in my blog "Oh, hey, I really like this piece - it reminds me so much of what I wrote about in my latest novel..." don't even make it up onto the blog.
But then thinking that such will generate interest in the product is probably related to thinking that their work is publishable/saleable...

Most attempts at self-promotion (whether from self-published authors or traditionally published authors) are annoying. It has little to do with how they're published and more to do with, well, how they market.

>>...makes the writer work harder and produce better...<<

Define "better."

"I know next to nothing about punk rock and I'm still pretty sure that that 'anyone can do it' line is not only wrong but offensively wrong to people who do know anything about punk rock."

Unfortunately, you're wrong about that.

Respectfully, absent any knowledge, you could spend a minute with Google, or Wikipedia.

I suggest trying Wikipedia on "punk rock," subsection "Philosophy."

"Personally, my own novel is science fiction, but I’m not a science fiction writer" is just dumb, though.

Unsurprisingly, science fiction is not, in fact, like punk rock.

"No longer is the power to publish in the hands of an oligarchy of elite few."

Who save you from having to go through the slush pile yourself.

It can be, and usually is, frustrating to go through the process of breaking into mainstream professional publishing.

But truly good writing is always desperately sought after, and seized upon eagerly whenever found, by "the elite."

The number of people who can actually write a good novel, and have not yet been professionally published, is relatively small.

The number of people who have had professionally published novels who can *keep* writing good novels in succession, is also finite. Being able to something adequately, or well, or very well, one or two or three times does not guarantee long-term consistency.

Will self-publishing help bring good new writers to the fore? Yes. The few of them who actually are good new writers.

Sturgeon's Law will continue to apply, whether it's via submissions to slushpiles, or via self-publishing, or self-web-publishing.

The last person to have perspective on how good a piece of writing is is the writer; next up are their friends and family.

And like any rule, this rule has exceptions. It doesn't make the generalization less true.

(Rose, not allowing HTML or links is Very Annoying.)

"Dunning–Kruger effect," yes. Thanks for getting me to google that.

Interesting discussion.

Rose--when it comes to the term "science fiction" I think every writer has the right to self-define however they want to self-define. I've written two books with some science fictional element but that also contain elements of other genres and modes of writing. It's not useful to me, in terms of thinking about my own writing, to self-define as a "science fiction writer" or even as a "fantasy writer". If others feel the need to do that, I don't have a problem with it, but I self-define as a fiction writer. And depending on the country in which my books are published, they're marketed as SF/Fantasy or just as mainstream literature/fiction. I don't have a problem with either approach. Whatever is the correct delivery system for the maximum number of readers to encounter the book with an entry point to it that allows them to enjoy it. If I were writing hard SF, and very clearly working within one set of genre tropes, then it might be different.

So I don't think a generalization about hating the idea of SF writers not self-identifying as SF writers is very useful. It neglects to think about reasons why a writer might legitimately either not care what people call his or her writing or the legitimate ways in which a writer might feel constrained by any particular title. Again: no one should tell a writer how to self-define.

Deciding how to define science fiction is mostly off the subject though. Gary Farber, above, calls it “dumb” to say I’m not a science fiction writer. My point was not about where a book should lie on the shelf, but that it could even get to the shelf in the first place. Because I’m not a traditional science fiction writer with a number of science fiction novels under my belt, I’m less obviously marketable than someone who’s already entrenched in the community. And given that traditional publishing is already gun-shy when it comes to books that aren’t easily marketable, it could pose a problem for my book. I’m more talking about how I would be regarded by a publisher’s marketing department than how I would be regarded by readers, which is my argument for taking a book straight to readers.

Henry: Given the willingness of major genre publishers to publish books by authors who combine and switch among genres--Iain (M.) Banks, Catherynne M. Valente, Michael Chabon, Maureen McHugh, Sharon Shinn, Richard Morgan, Terry Pratchett, Mary Robinette Kowal, Jay Lake, Scott Westerfeld, China Miéville, Jim Butcher, Cherie Priest, Alaya Dawn Johnson, and Daniel Abraham/MLN Hanover come to mind, just off the top of my head--I remain baffled by your assertion that traditional publishers would be reluctant to buy a good book from such an author. Every traditional publisher I'm aware of also publishes debut novels, which obviously don't come from authors who've already published "a number of science fiction novels". Well-regarded independent genre presses publish books like Interfictions and the works of Zoran Zivkovic; I'd say I get at least one "unclassifiable" book coming across my desk every month, maybe more, and I see plenty of marketing materials that trumpet authorial uniqueness or declare that a book "transcends genre" or "resists classification". This is the community that created the Interstitial Arts Foundation! We are not exactly resistant to change.

I think it is demonstrably factually incorrect to say that traditional genre publishers are uninterested in unclassifiable books, debuts, and books from authors who write in different genres. If you're describing the value of self-publishing in those terms, then it's going to be a very hard sell for people who see the biggest imprints in the business coming out with books like Julian Comstock (future history boy's-own dystopian military adventure from Tor), The City & the City (quasi-fantastical Ruritanian police procedural from Del Rey), Palimpsest (surreal queer erotic horror portal quest from Spectra), and Soulless (Victorian steampunk supernatural political mystery romance--and a debut novel, no less--from Orbit), not to mention the independent presses that publish books like Interfictions (a wide variety of genre-blurring stories from Small Beer), The Writer/The Book/The Reader (surrealist metafiction from PS Publishing), The Sword-Edged Blonde (hard-boiled gumshoe fantasy from Night Shade), and The Tel Aviv Dossier (eldritch international spy thriller from ChiZine). Again, this is off the top of my head.

I don't for a minute disagree that the traditional publishing model is flawed, but at least among genre imprints and presses, focusing solely on conventional crowdpleasers is not one of those flaws.

Well, I'm not talking about indie presses. No doubt indie presses are more daring. But they’ve also got less money to publish everything they want to publish. Of course good books are published traditionally, but it is getting harder if you’re not easily classifiable, even if you can list exceptions. And it’s certainly possible that my book could find a taker. But I find self-publishing an interesting development and I want to be a part of it. If I can establish myself in a venue where I have complete creative freedom and I don’t have struggle through a frustrating process – which may lead nowhere - then this is a chance worth taking. Self-publishing makes particular sense for a science fiction novel because the means of production itself is forward-looking. It’s because self-publishing is so maligned – and it shouldn’t be – that attracts me to it. Much like science fiction.

I’m just tired of waiting a year to find out yes or no, and then finding out that a publisher is not doing a lot more than I could do myself – especially at the indie level, where distribution is not always much better than I could do on my own. I am not one of those writers who thinks self-publishing is superior. If a good publisher came knocking, I’d sign on immediately because I want the distribution. I never recommend self-publishing as a first resort (as I say in the interview) but as more of a fallback when publishers say, “We love this, but…” which is happening with increasing regularity.

"Gary Farber, above, calls it 'dumb' to say I’m not a science fiction writer."

Out of context, that would be a rude and justifiable statement.

However, I wasn't responding to the half-sentence you selectively quote, which is leaves out the context of your entire sentence.

You wrote: "[p]ersonally, my own novel is science fiction, but I’m not a science fiction writer."

Anyone who writes science fiction is a "science fiction writer." It's not the whole of who you are, it's not something that defines you, it's not something that limits you. It merely describes what you said you've done: written science fiction. Someone who writes science fiction has, at least past tense, been a science fiction writer.

That's all.

How books, stories, and people get marketed is a different question, and not a point I was getting into.

In any case, I wasn't trying to force you to accept an unwanted self-label; if you don't want to call yourself a "science fiction writer," that's a choice you're free to make. If you, however, want to say "my own novel is science fiction, but I’m not a science fiction writer," you may may wind you up in an argument with someone who will suggest that this isn't a sentence that, <i>per se</i>, makes a lot of sense.

And, for what it's worth, what Rose says here is, of course, absolutely correct: "I think it is demonstrably factually incorrect to say that traditional genre publishers are uninterested in unclassifiable books, debuts, and books from authors who write in different genres."

"Well, I'm not talking about indie presses."

This is a complete non-sequitur, since neither was Rose. She gave numerous examples from the largest, most mainstream, science fiction publishers that exist. Bantam, Random House, and Holtzbrinck (which owns Tor) are as far from "indie presses" as possible.

"I’m just tired of waiting a year to find out yes or no,"

That's entirely reasonable.

"and then finding out that a publisher is not doing a lot more than I could do myself"

That one, though, is completely wrong.

"...but as more of a fallback when publishers say, 'We love this, but…' which is happening with increasing regularity.

Passive voice: you neglect to identify to whom this is "happening with increasing regularity." If you mean that it's happening "with increasing regularity" to unpublished writers in general, you're wrong. If you mean it's happening to some people you know, fine.

But, yes, being successful in publishing, <i>particularly</i> before you sell your first book, requires a <i>great</i> deal of patience. It's frustrating, there's no doubt about it.

(And once your manuscript is bought, your life becomes, like that of a soldier, filled with long periods requiring patience, and then sudden spans of frantic energy, such as when you get your copyedited manuscript back, and have to go through it in a week, or a weekend, or when you get your proofs, and the same happens.)

Argh, speaking of proofreading: "Out of context, that would be a rude and justifiable statement."

<i>Un-</i>justifiable statement is, of course, what I meant.

Gary, I think I've explained what I meant by "science fiction writer." You're right about the indie vs. mainstream thing – though a lot of people are finding themselves breaking through the mainstream and then being ignored. My response was based in part on my own experience with indie presses and some big presses, which didn’t do a lot to push the book.

And I think it’s pretty much conventional wisdom that editors are feeling boxed in by the current publishing climate and it’s harder to get published. I’ve heard many stories of “We love this, but…” (not just from my friends).

PW really needs to think about allowing HTML tags in comments. This is archaic. I’ve written some more about this: www.selfpublishingreview.com/2009/09/09/should-you-self-publish-2/

Henry, having read your "Should You Self Publish?" piece, there isn't anything you say in it that warrants my taking time to quibble with. I think your endeavor is a fine thing, and I'm sure you'll make some finds, and some good things with it. I wish you all success.

I did only just read your interview, and perhaps it's just an artifact of selective quoting and editing, but I do have to disagree with this: "For some reason, people have got it into their heads that the bad self-published books represent all of self-publishing. This doesn’t make sense, any more than a bad blog represents all of blogging, or a bad indie rock CD represents all of independent music."

The reason that most people have "have got it into their heads" that most self-published works are bad is because the vast and overwhelming majority of them are, in fact, <i>very very bad</i>. Vanity presses have been around a very long time, and anyone familiar with their output knows perfectly well that most of it is horrible stuff.

A prejudice against self-selected work is entirely reasonable, because few non-professionals are capable of objectively analyzing the quality of their own work, absent, at best, distance of time. The same applies to their family and friends, almost all of whom will say it's the greatest thing they've read ever.

I just had the father of a friend tell me exactly that about his deceased son's unpublished novel yesterday.

Anyone who has worked in publishing has had these experiences about 83 bazillion times. Anyone who has ever read a slush pile knows that most of it is very very very awful, and that most of that which is not completely horrible still has significant things wrong with it that would require a lot of work to fix.

Yes, there are plenty of bad books published, but the percentage of bad books published by any non-vanity publisher, where the publisher actually has to lay out significant money, is far less, with those filters and interests, than work which is purely self-selected.

Self-publishing does not get an "unfair rap." That the overwhelming majority of it is crap doesn't mean that all of it is crap. But a prejudice against it is perfectly sane and justified. The prejudice simply shouldn't extend so far as to be utterly closed to the notion that some occasional good work might be found as needles in the haystack.

Secondly: "MG: What do you like best about self-published work?"

"HB: That it’s publishing’s future."

Will there be endlessly more of it? Obviously? Will some good work initially be published that way? Of course. There have already been several cases of commercially and critically successful work being picked up from self-publication to mainstream publication, and more than one fiction-writing career started that way. (Famous examples: <i>Eragon</i>, John Scalzi.)

But is self-publishing, whether on the web, POD, or however else, going to make filtered publishing go away? No, because people who act as filters who do a good job will always have great value to add as filters and selectors.

These are the only two points you've made that I'd argue with. Otherwise, what you say is largely sensible and reasonable and I wish you the best of success.

Having grown up in Liverpool in the 1960s when that Beatles town was awash with small bands playing at parties, in garden sheds, pubs and village halls bringing enormous pleasure to hordes of people in spite of playing dreadfully badly, it seems to me that punk rock was simply a 'back to basics' rejection of the complicated, expensive and unattainable elitism that pop music had become. And not just the music, as witness the safety pin jewellery. The door had been closed on the ability of ordinary folk to make themselves heard, and they kicked it open again, much as the Beatles had done earlier.

I don't think Henry Baum's analogy is as poor as many claim. The digital revolution has enabled almost anyone to publish a book at minimal expense, and make themselves heard. And why shouldn't they? Why is everyone getting so steamed up about it, just because most of the books are not written or produced very well? Most of the Liverpool bands of the 50s and 60s were rubbish but they gave pleasure to thousands. And look at the gems that came out of the environment they created.

After having 12 books published by mainstream publishers I have had difficulty placing a small novel as "we cannot categorise it and therefore calculate the probable sales", despite my first editor loving it. Faced with the prospect of maybe years trailing round publishers with no certainty of ever seeing it in print, I opted to publish it myself, on the basis that I now have a book, and a head start of some years to try and market it. The cost was slight and the possibilities are endless. Why shouldn't ordinary folk publish their own books, even if only half a dozen readers get pleasure from them? It is a big world, and I think there is room in it for all of us. As they say at Smashwords: "The good stuff will naturally rise to the top and the dross sink to the bottom". Is that not how life works?

>>A prejudice against self-selected work is entirely reasonable, because few non-professionals are capable of objectively analyzing the quality of their own work, absent, at best, distance of time.<<

Important point.

While it may be true that much self-published work is "very, very bad," the problem arises when self-pubbed work has gone through the steps necessary to - for all intents and purposes - PROVE its worth (critical reviews, reader reviews, media, etc.) and is still rejected (say, by reviewers who absolutely REFUSE to look at self-pubbed work no matter what) on the basis that it's self-published.

At that point, it's not a matter of reasoning; it's - as you, yourself wrote - a case of blind, simple, foundation-less prejudice.

...except, you said it without those colorful adjectives. :) (Please allow my correction.)

Kristen: Speaking of prejudice, please don't use "blind" as a pejorative term here.

"Why is everyone getting so steamed up about it...?"

Could you perhaps provide links to three people getting "so steamed up about it"? I haven't noticed any such people, myself, and I'm pretty sure it's demonstrable that "everyone" is not steamed up. But it's a huge internet, so I'm sure people must be getting steamed up about the issue somewhere; I'm just curious where.

Three examples would do.

"Why shouldn't ordinary folk publish their own books, even if only half a dozen readers get pleasure from them?"

I'm not sure "ordinary" is the word you want, because being professionally published is neither extraordinary, nor does it require that one be an extraordinary person; it simply takes perseverance that one is able to eventually channel into being able to write and plot well enough.

But if there are any hit squads out there attempting to hunt down people who are self-publishing, and kill them before or after they self-publish, I've missed out on that news.

"...and is still rejected (say, by reviewers who absolutely REFUSE to look at self-pubbed work no matter what"

You have to understand that there are tens of thousands of books published each month, in America alone, by real publishers. No reviewer can keep up with even a fraction of that number of books, and a reviewer who limits themself to a particular field of nonfiction, or genre of fiction, still can't manage to even glance at every book published in their field of expertise in any given time period. (Back in the Seventies, a person could keep up with all the sf and fantasy published in a month; this hasn't been the case in a long time; certainly not if you have to work another job.)

Given that, and that there are also thousands of self-published books, it's not a matter of a reviewer willfully and malicious refusing to make time to look at any specific self-published book, but a question of what mechanism the reviewer might use to somehow filter out <i>which</i> limited number of self-published books they could somehow add to their already impossible burden of far too many books to even give a fair glance at.

In the end, this isn't a matter of "self-published books" not being treated fairly, but specific books self-published by one's self and friends not, one ends up feeling, being treated "fairly."

But unless you can demonstrate that you yourself are capable of reviewing 100,000 books per month, you'll have to suggest what alternative filter mechanism reviewers should use to be more fair than to, as a rule, exclude self-published books from their normal purview.

One could always use random choice to pluck out, say, five a month, to spend a few minutes on, but random selection isn't likely to prove a terribly productive methodology.

Something along the lines of checking websites that can apply crowd-sourcing, so that a book that has been measurably read by, say, five thousand people a month, or some other useful metric, on the other hand, might be worthy of attention.

"PROVE its worth (critical reviews, reader reviews, media, etc.)

To break this down, any book, self-published or otherwise, that gets significant critical attention is going to attract further attention. "Reader reviews" are only going to be paid attention to if there are a very large number of very articulate reviews somewhere noticeable. Anyone can write a "review" that's merely a plot summary, or is incomprehensible, or that demonstrates through its own poorly written quality that the reviewer isn't capable of literately evaluating a work, and such reviews do the opposite of any work or writer a favor. (See Amazon.com, or the "reviews" dreadful writers include in their cover letters to their horrible crap, or the reviews in badly-done, as opposed to the better, fanzines; etc.)

I don't know what proving the worth of text through "media" means.

Bottom line is that as Sleepyjohn just wrote, more than not "The good stuff will naturally rise to the top and the dross sink to the bottom."

There are exceptions, but this is indeed the general tendency in publishing. If something that's really great comes to the attention of a competent editor or agent, they'll try to grab it, if rights are available, wherever and however they run across that great work.

Meanwhile, Sturgeon's Law, which few want to think applies to themselves or their friends.

Gary Farber: I think we can be allowed the occasional exaggeration, can we not? I'm sure no-one thinks I am claiming to have polled 6 billion on the issue. But you would like three specific examples, so here goes:

"I Don't Want to Hate Self-Publishers. But ..." - I think you must be pretty steamed up to consider hating something as innocuous as publishing one's own book or writing a couple of vaguely contentious sentences. We are not talking paedophilia or genocide here. I think hatred is a rather powerful notion to be bandied about over such trivial affairs, even if there were my excuse of exaggeration. I'm sure I don't need to show proof that hatred has caused more harm in the world just during the writing of this sentence than self-publishing ever will.

The writer was strongly supported by Anonymous editor, crochetyoldfan and Red, who all clearly enthusiastically agreed with her sentiments. That makes four without leaving this thread. Google gave me 1,260,000 for 'hate self-publishers'.

I am not sure that the millions of readers who have not been professionally published would agree with you that it is an ordinary thing, requiring no more than perseverance. I am not sure that the writers who have been published would either.

I actually don't think that this whole thing should be any more of an issue than people painting their own front doors instead of paying a trained professional. They probably won't do as good a job, but so what? It is probably good enough for them and their visitors. If they rate their skill so highly as to try and make money from it they will probably be sorely disappointed, but so what?

If I do not want to spend all day fishing dead beetles out of my drinking water I run it through a filter. If I do not want to spend all day fishing dross out of my reading pile I must do the same. Commercial publishers provide filters for readers, as do reviewers, friends and acquaintances; and professional readers provide them for publishers. Those who produce unfiltered books must accept being at the bottom of this 'food chain'. And those who read only filtered books must accept the possibility of missing some gems. None of this is rocket science; and none of it seems to me to provide sufficient reason for anyone to get steamed up.

My son has a friend whose brother spends his life digging through mountains of dirt in search of gold, and he finds enough to make a living. And when I asked my first publisher whether they read everything in the slush pile, she said: "Certainly. You never know what might be in there." So it is an interesting world, and we should all be allowed to have a stab at it.

Perhaps referring to these 'stabs' as 'home-printing' rather than 'self-publishing' would remove the hackle-raising implication of emulating a professional publisher.

Okay, so I self-published my short story collections. I actually started a POD press to do all this. After years of working with authors, I can state that much of what Rose mentions is utterly true.

Too often the authors are so excited about being published that they do not even take into consideration such a thing as editing. And I get sick when I hear how writers think there is this grand conspiracy by the big NY publishers to steal their creativity.

While there have been a few self-published successes, I notice that those authors invariably go on to the traditional route. Why? Because it's nigh impossible to compete with the larger presses for the dwindling attention of readers. The larger presses are more successful at reaching readers.

If all you want to do is share your work with a few hundred, fine than self-publish. But don't whine when few libraries, bookstores (not to mention no Sams Clubs or BJs, which are the big booksellers these days) carry your work.

Steve

Rose - sorry the use of the word "blind" offended you. I assure you I meant no offense to unsighted people (I thought the alternate meaning of the word was clear in context, but it may not have been). Apologies.

Blind: 3. Not characterized or determined by reason.

Okay, not only can I not embedd a link, but I apparently can't even provide a dead link. This makes commenting impossible.

"I am not sure that the millions of readers who have not been professionally published would agree with you that it is an ordinary thing, requiring no more than perseverance."

I'm quite sure most wouldn't. They don't have an informed opinion. I've you've learned how to write well enough to be professionally published, you're qualified to speak to the subject of what it takes to get to be professionally published. An alternative route would be to work hard and long enough in professional publishing and editing to be put in a position to have learned what makes the difference between publishable and unpublishable work, and the various routes people take to move from being able to produce only work in one category to being able to produce work in the other category.

But now I can't supply the relevant link. This really does need to be fixed.

Google "I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script" at the "runnin' scared" blog at the Village Voice.

Kristen: I think it was most gracious of you to apologise for what seems to me to have been a perfectly acceptable use of language, as Mark noted. Your comment may have been critical of those who refuse to view self-published books, but "disparaging, derogatory, or belittling" to blind people? I don't think so.

Gary: You should be able to include a URL as long as it lacks the "h t t p : / /" part. I agree that this is an awful system, but unfortunately fixing it is not the top priority for RBI's IT team; believe me, I've asked many times.

Your comment did actually get through but was flagged as spam; I've made it live. If that happens again just email me (rose@genreville.com) and I'll fix it. I don't get notifications of spamtrapped comments--again, broken system, again, no hope of improvement anytime soon.

Mark, SleepyJohn, Kristen: I agree that it's common to use "blind" to mean "stupid", just like it's common to use "lame" to mean "pathetic" or "gay" to mean "bad" or "gypped" to mean "robbed". Lots of nasty things are common. They're even common enough to get into dictionaries. They're still not welcome here.

Rose Fox: It may be common for some people to use 'blind' as a synonym for 'stupid', but it is quite clear that neither Mark nor Kristen did. Mark thought Kristen was using #3. I thought she meant #2. Neither of them infer stupidity, rather a refusal to look. I don't think your comparison with the childish use of 'lame', 'gay' and 'gypped' is even remotely relevant. However, as you find it so objectionable, I shall refrain from using words that might offend you.

Having said that, it may be less trouble to simply refrain from using words. I shall go into the garage and pop some blind rivets instead; while listening to early Punk Rock, which never was intended to be music, but a movement, a rebellion - graffiti with guitars. A defining mood in pop culture which one would expect a professional media commentator to know about. Punk Rockers offended by someone bucking the system? I don't think so. A lifelong travel author who one day turns out an historical novel qualifies as 'an historical novelist'? I don't think so. Henry Baum deserving of your castigation? I don't think so. Frankly, I have heard more carefully reasoned arguments in my daughter's Primary School playground.

PS Gary: Thank you for the interesting take on the public's perception of professionally published writing. It has given me a different, even alliterative slant on the matter.

Well, into the fray, once more, dear friends.... If you don't want to hate self publishers, then don't. I don't want to hate mainstream publishers who, with all their acumen and know-how, still perpetrate scores of terrible books upon the marketplace. I don't hate them -- everyone makes mistakes.

This discussion should be about what self-publishing means in today's marketplace, not over whether or not the publishing industry "gatekeepers" will be able to finally put aside hundreds of years of derisive, smugness about what an author might be able to do on their own.

It's the readers who ultimately decide the value of a book. If they can find it, and buy it, then the real question of "quality" lies not with how it was produced, but whether the reader enjoys the read.

"It's the readers who ultimately decide the value of a book. If they can find it, and buy it, then the real question of "quality" lies not with how it was produced, but whether the reader enjoys the read."

However, since I am not, ever, going to waste my time reading anything that was not profesionally edited and published, there is no way I'm ever going to "find" a self-published book. I long for the day when a convention is established whereby all online sellers clearly identify self-published stuff so that people looking for real books don't have to waste our time looking up publishers we never heard off. (Fortunately, most of the time, the bad cover art gives the fake books away, but that's still three clicks out of my life I'll never get back...)