Self-publishers versus book reviewers - FIGHT!

[LukeW]

I was thinking...

In Australia (not sure about the rest of the world), the only thing that seems to define a publisher is whether they are the holder of an ISBN or not.

Now it seems that there are many book reviewers out there that won't touch self-published books, but as we know, book reviews are critical in good book sales.

If an author decided to go the self-publishing route and purchased an ISBN for their book, what's to say that they can't come up with their own publishing name and logo, giving it the look of a traditionally published text?

If that were the case, how would a book reviewer distinguish between a self-published book and one that is published by a small/unknown publishing firm?

Could this be a work around for getting those hard-nosed, no-selfers book reviewers to look at a book?

Just a thought.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Most self-publishers do these things, Luke. In fact, you can't sell your book on Amazon, or in bookstores without that ISBN.

Most, if not all, self-published books -- and even those from small presses that use some of the same services as self-published books to print theirs -- have a certain look to them that is different from books put out by established publishers. It's the way they are produced, which makes them stand out even if the author makes up a name and logo for his or her own imprint. If the general public can't tell the difference, I can usually tell by a glance, or at the very least by paging through the book, and I imagine that reviewers can, too. Besides, they tend to review books from publishers and authors they already know.

On the other hand, although you may not get magazine or newspaper reviewers to take a look at your book, there are plenty of online reviewers who should be willing to write a review your book if you send them a copy. (Harriet Klausner, for instance, reviews everything that comes her way.)

To be perfectly clear: I do agree that you should do all of those things: the name and logo, the ISBN. Just don't do so thinking it's going to fool the professionals into reviewing your book.

 

[LukeW]

I see.

So when a service like Lulu offers a free ISBN is it generally a good idea to decline and use a paid ISBN instead?

I guess, looking at the only sample of print-on-demand that I have available, that there are a couple of things that give it away if you were looking for them.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Wouldn't it be better to do your homework, find reviewers who are interested in the genre you write in and have no specific bias against self-publishing and approach them?

Especially in the worlds of sf, fantasy and horror you can create some buzz approaching semipro zines and bloggers with good followings.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Just so long as you have the ISBN, Luke, it doesn't matter how you get it. Some self-published authors think they can skip it, but it really is a good thing to have.

 

[Tirellan]

Anyone whose reviews are worth having will be familiar with most of the publishers out there; presented with a book from an unfamiliar publisher they are instantly going to Google the publisher's name. That will reveal whether the book is self-published. You would be better off being completely open with any reviewer you contact.
After all do you want a review like this? To Love a Sagelord: The Return to Enlightenment Volume One by Paul Massey - an infinity plus review

 

[darkpowers]

Shouldn't reviewers be more concerned with the actual quality of the writing in a book rather than turning their noses up at it just because it's been self published?

 

[The Ace]

Yes Darkpowers. A lot of self-publication, though, is, 'Vanity,' publishing, the author using money as a substitute for talent.

While this isn't always the case, it happens often enough that a reviewer, pushed for time, will put a self-published volume to the back of the queue, whatever its merit and concentrate on a publisher who has read the book himself and taken the risk of putting it on the market.

Publishers can be wrong, but its their job to know and predict the market and choose ideas which will sell, recouping their advance to the author and making them a few quid on the side too.

 

[Tirellan]

Shouldn't reviewers be more concerned with the actual quality of the writing in a book rather than turning their noses up at it just because it's been self published?

yes....but how many self-published books have you read (from people you don't know)?
Once you've read a few (and it doesn't take too many), and seen very clearly why a publisher didn't want them, you pick up the next with a weary sigh.
For some reason those books that were near misses at getting picked up by a decent publisher are not those that end up being self-published (with a few honourable exceptions)

 

[darkpowers]

yes....but how many self-published books have you read (from people you don't know)?
Once you've read a few (and it doesn't take too many), and seen very clearly why a publisher didn't want them, you pick up the next with a weary sigh.
For some reason those books that were near misses at getting picked up by a decent publisher are not those that end up being self-published (with a few honourable exceptions)

That's a fair question. I used to work in regional newspapers and did reviews as part of my editorial duties. I did actually see some good examples of self published books from authors, and, yes, some bad ones as well. But it was exactly the same for books from established publishers, some were worth reading and others had me shaking my head, wondering how they ever saw print.

But I least looked at them rather than just dismiss them because they weren't from mainstream, established publishers.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Here's a point - if a writer can't be bothered to go through the publishing process, and hasn't had their work professionally edited, then why on earth should anyone else invest their time into reading it?

The rule of thumb is that if you self-publish, you do so for friends and family to read it - you don;t need a review.

If a review is that important, at the very least there needs to be a guarantee that the text has undergone professional editing to bring it up to general publishing standards.

Remember, there are a ton of self-published books out there, and most of them are of very questionable quality. Once you've come across a couple of those, you've learned from experience never to read self-published works again.

There are some very good self-published books out there - but they are the exception, not the norm.

The problem is, when someone writes a book they are convinced of its great worth - but really it's a completely narcissic approach.

I've received plenty of requests for book reviews at chronicles, and just ignore them if they are self-published. I have limited time - I want to read something that's at least gone through basic quality controls for spelling and grammar. If someone can't be bothered going through the industry process, why should I be bothered reading it?

If someone does self-publish they absolutely have to make themselves stand out from the crowd in some brilliant way, that shows their work is of a real quality that people really do want to read - because at present, self-published works are overwhelmingly awful, badly written pieces of junk that no one but the author wants to read, and no one but the author should ever read!

That's the background you have to work with - that's the context you have to work against.

And I'm sorry if I sound harsh or heartless, but I'm trying to point out the reality of the situation.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Shouldn't reviewers be more concerned with the actual quality of the writing in a book

Absolutely right! From a publishing house, whether mainstream or small press, it will have gone through quality controls - everything from selection to editing.

There are no quality controls in self publishing, so you have to expect the worse.

The sad thing is that there are actually a lot of great unpublished writers out there, but they absolutely have to understand the association they put themselves into if they get tired, give up, and go the self-published route. Prove your difference for attention!

 

[Omphalos]

I don't bother with self published stuff - unless I personally know the writer - not only because the writing is generally sub-par, but because for the most part its opaque to genre-specific critical methodologies. I suppose with most of it I could get into traditional critical methods, such as character, setting, plot and the like, but that never really tells you much about the SF cred of the story. I can't tell you how many self-published SF & F books I have read over the years that started off as real genre works that within a few chapters turned into some kind of kinky sex wish-fulfillment story, off the hook revenge fantasy, or where the authors completely fail to work the nuanced line between magic and technology. AFAIAC, most of them are not worth the time, especially because most of them make the same rookie mistakes.

If self-published authors want critique, I say go to a workshop, or send it to a hack, like the aforementioned Klausner. Reading and writing about a book can be a time-consuming and mentally taxing job. I would prefer to do it about works that I have something constructive to say.

 

[HareBrain]

The problem for self-published books is to get noticed amongst all the dross. What I would like to see is a website for self-published books which functions much like a bookshelf - you can skim covers, titles and blurbs several to a page, along with a star-rating of reader reviews; any interesting ones you can then read the reviews and the first chapter(s), author biog etc, before ordering. You would be able to order the site by rating, tags, etc.

At present finding decent self-published works is a haphazard process of luck. I've bought two self-published books from Amazon, both with good reviews, that I put down for good after the first few pages. OTOH I've recently read in pdf format a self-published book that's one of the best reads I've had in years, thanks to coming across this paragraph in a comment on a blog:

But books are my first love, and I had the notion that there might be room on the shelf for a sweeping, colorful, romantic adventure about love, betrayal, political assassination, human sacrifice, immortality, sorcery and the elusive nature of reality, you know, everyday Mexican stuff. But maybe not. Maybe Jaguar isn’t even a thriller. Maybe it’s a “sweeping panorama of adventure,” as one CAA agent said, or maybe it’s just a novel.

For my personal tastes, about as good a sales pitch as could have been made.

 

[Sparrow]

Brian ~If someone does self-publish they absolutely have to make themselves stand out from the crowd in some brilliant way, that shows their work is of a real quality that people really do want to read - because at present, self-published works are overwhelmingly awful, badly written pieces of junk that no one but the author wants to read, and no one but the author should ever read!

So true.


And if your work does stand out, and you really do have your writing chops down, don't stop there... remember that presentation is important.
As an artist, I have had it upto my gills with self-published work that has gawd-awful cover art and interior illustrations! There are hundreds and hundreds of talented artists that would dearly love the exposure and yet again and again I see writers putting together an artistic abortion in Photoshop. Adobe Photoshop is not a toy; it is a professional tool that can take years to master and using it to construct a cover on the fly for your story will make it painfully clear to reviewers and mainstream readers alike, that you are an amateur and not ready for prime time.

Packaging is everything!
The big Publishers go to great lengths to sell the product and do so using tried and true methods. This means self-publishing should be at least equal to the task. Find an artists whose style fits your writing and strike up a relationship with him/her. Negotiate a price, and commission a piece for your cover... just like the pros.

In the last few years I've seen some perfectly hideous cover art out there.

 

[Pyan]

Definitive answer?

Google Fight: book reviewers VS self-publishers

 

[Yahzi]

Most self-publishers do these things, Luke. In fact, you can't sell your book on Amazon, or in bookstores without that ISBN.

Actually, my book is selling through Amazon (via Lulu) without an ISBN.

The only drawback is I can't identify myself as the author to Amazon to add product details.

Most, if not all, self-published books -- and even those from small presses that use some of the same services as self-published books to print theirs -- have a certain look to them that is different from books put out by established publishers.

My book was designed and laid out by a professional editor with 10+ years of experience (my wife). Nonetheless I suspect you could identify it as self-published.

(Harriet Klausner, for instance, reviews everything that comes her way.)

Yes, she reviews everything that comes her way; she just doesn't read it first.

Just don't do so thinking it's going to fool the professionals into reviewing your book.

I can't even fool the amateurs into reviewing mine.

 

[Gary Compton]

So what's your's called. Tell us a little about it Yahzi?

 

[cyberpunkdreams]

I've been involved in one self-published book so far (I designed it).

The book has more than made the money invested back and is still selling, both through small selected shops and through it's own web site (although it's never going to make anyone rich!) We printed it with a traditional printer and didn't get an ISBN or anything like. Nor was it reviewed anywhere, as far as I know.

Self-publishing is definitely growing and becoming more respectable, although of course you get more chaff with the wheat. With the tools available on the web, it's also becoming more profitable.

 

[dustinzgirl]

Adobe Photoshop is not a toy

But its so much fun to play with!

My brother and my grandmother are both artists, my daughter wants to be one. Me, I can't draw a circle if my life depended on it.

I think that one of the problems is that people seem to have this stigma that self publishing is easy. You put your book on the net and people will magically see it and buy it. They don't consider the hard work required to make your book able to be found by people, both readers and reviewers. It really is a lot of work, even after you write the perfect book. Its not just luck, as any traditionally published author will tell you. Even in the "real" publishing industry you still have to promote your book. Promotion is a lot of work, it is not fun, it is kind of boring.