Well, it wasn't that small of a fraction - there were 11 examples given in the article, and 2 of them were definitely inaccurate. So talking about only 18% of something is apparently cherrypicking? If we expand that criteria to the ratio of successful self-published books out of all the self-published books produced in a year, I assume that less than 18% successful would also be cherrypicking? So are you cherrypicking successful self-published books, or are you arguing that more than 18% of them are successful? Or does "cherrypicking" only apply to other people's evidence, not yours?
Are you or are you not arguing in support of @Lemex's claim, "Very few self-published book have been fantastically well received"? I can't tell if you agree with Lemex or you just want to complain that I didn't cite sufficient sources countering his unsupported opinion?
I agree with that claim. I think you do too, don't you? Your example has shown a very small number of well-received self-published books, not a very large number. If he'd said "absolutely no" self-published books have been well received, your articles might have rebutted his claim. But apparently he didn't say "absolutely no", so... I agree, very few self-published books have been well received. If you add the "fantastically" in, my agreement is even more clear.
There is no logic in the sentence above. Edited to add in case the quote doesn't show due to one's reading settings: I refer to the "its a red herring' sentence.)
Yes, my sentence was imprecise, awkward and had a typo. If one is simply discrediting some of the self-published books in the two citations, unless one is making the claim, @Lemex's statement is right, then the argument becomes a red herring as it shifts the discussion to whether or not 50 Shades was originally self-published when the actual discussion is whether or not @Lemex was correct. I'm happy to debate @Lemex's statement, "Very few self-published book have been fantastically well received." As it stands I've cited publications that contradict the statement. No one else has cited anything. I understand it's difficult to prove the negative as it would be in this case, how do you support the claim, self-published works are rarely successful? It's easy to show self-published works that are successful. For that matter, one also has to consider, very few traditionally published books are fantastically well received if we want to compare apples to apples. And.... we've had this discussion a gazillion times before.
But you haven't cited publications that contradict the statement, because the statement wasn't an absolute. It didn't say "there have been absolutely no self-published books that have been fantastically received." If it had said that, then all you'd have had to do is find one exception. But... that's not what it said. You provided a list of 9 books that might be self-published and that seem to have been well-received. Surely you're not saying that nine books is not "very few"?
Well...no. You really haven't. Not at all. Even if every single example in the publication cited WERE a fantastically successful self-published book, that doesn't contradict the statement. Because it was a very small number of examples.
In terms of the comparison of self-pubbed to trade pubbed books and the relative likelihood of such books being "fantastically well-received"... We'd have to define fantastically well received, but if we look at NYT best-sellers, the number one books for 2015 so far are at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Fiction_Best_Sellers_of_2015 -. Unlike the non-fiction lists, the publishers aren't listed for fiction, but I don't think any of those authors self-publish. Do you think they do? I didn't see any self-publishers on the 2014 list. In 2013, Jamie McGuire made it - I'm not sure if she was self-published at the time or not. But that looks like one 'maybe' in the last three years. Which seems like "very few" to me.
Did either of you even look at the second citation? Self-Published Ebooks Keep Ahead on Best-Seller List Did either of you make an effort to see if that was a one-off? The verb, "keep up" suggests it's not. This link has been cited before with a huge debate about a few authors skewing the results: http://authorearnings.com/report/july-2014-author-earnings-report/ Four Smashwords authors made The New York TimesBest Sellers list for eBook fiction this week This discussion continues to be a dead horse beater.
So now we have to debate the meaning of "fantastically well-received" and decide whether the books mentioned in the second article qualify? And now you're dragging out articles that have already been discussed and dismissed the LAST time we had this conversation. No, fuck it. Life is too short. If you want to believe that lots of self-published books are fabulously successful, believe it. Enjoy.
I never said self-publishing was bad. I pointed out an error - and that led to a discussion argument about what self-publishing is and what trade publishing isn't. Good grief. Is it an ingredient in the Kool-Aid that makes it impossible to admit that there's a factual error in articles about self-publishing? As to soooo many other sites calling 50 Shades self-published - I do genealogy. I found one family tree that showed a set of parents born 40+ years after their daughter was born. Guess how many other family trees I found that contained that same error? It's called insufficient research. News flash: just because it's on the 'net doesn't make it true. But yeah, agree with BayView. Life's too short for this bullshit.
Obviously. But given all the research that's been posted now about 50 Shades, it's also not as clear cut as simply saying the information is false. Anyhoo...
Want productive discussions about self publishing and indie publishing, discuss it with people who are open these as alternative models. In ten years there will still be people clinging to the idea that only traditional publishing is valid and trying to make the world fit into that particular box. There won't be as many, but there will be some. The only question is whether people who know better will still waste time arguing with them.
Note: Indie publishing is trade publishing btw, not an "alternative model" - but I suppose that's part of the confusion with 50 Shades. And one more time: I AM NOT AGAINST SELF-PUBLISHING. Geez. Talk about wasting time. I'm not even going to look at this thread any more. Go ahead and play the matyrs to your heart's content...
For what it's worth @shadowwalker, it wasn't your post that set this off. It was @Lemex followed by the usual suspects.
We've had this conversation before. I've self-published, and I plan to self-publish in the future. I'm in the middle of putting a re-released book together right now. I'm open to a variety of models. I just think the discussion of the models should be based on accurate information. If you want to pretend that any disagreement is based on some irrational bias against self-publishing... well, I can't see how you can find support for that in the available evidence. But if it makes you feel better, go for it.
If you aren't dissing self-publishing, @BayView, then what's the problem? Who is it you think is posting inaccurate information and what specifically is that inaccurate information?
I just want to know which ants paint the grass green at night. I will be more careful with my use of Amdro ant killer application.
God damn, I'm glad I'm going for a more distant policy with this forum now. Reading this has frankly given me a headache. :/ [Actually, no]
Who objected to indie publishing? I certainly didn't. I objected to equating indie publishing with self publishing.
Protestations aside, if people quack like ducks, etc. @ChickenFreak - I use my own publishing imprint for my books. I've also published some works by others. So am I now indie published instead of self-published? Seems like it is largely a question of semantics. There isn't a practical difference on my end as author/publisher.
You're self-published for your books. If the others weren't friends or relatives, and if they didn't pay you a single penny or in any other way defray the costs to publish their works, those others are indie published.
