Quality in self publishing (split from not happy)

I suppose the meth comparison was a bit uncalled for. Still, I definitely view such books as Shades to be not worthy of time. I view such media to be actively harmful in the sense that it's 1) not a good use of one's time and 2) it's morally and intellectually degrading. I knew eventually this idea of wanting to relax would come up. It always does. What I say to that is that I, too, want to relax at times. But whatever I choose to indulge in will always have something more to it. I hate saying this as it just makes me sound like a [insert any synonym for snob]. Case and point, Calvin and Hobbes. That's the perfect example, really. Easy and light to read, but at the same time meaningful and insightful. I don't think you can compare something so wholesome and serious in its own way to a bunch of superheroes fighting each other for no other reason than to entertain the popcorn-eating masses.

Edit: I forgot the nudity thing. Perfectly fine with that if it's done in the right way. Of course Joyce is going to be better. That's all fine. Fifty shades though? Not so much...

 

1. Of course it's my opinion. Where have I suggest it's not? Everything I've ever said has been my opinion. This is a common thing people seem to do, assume that when someone says something they're automatically attempting to speak for everyone. I've noticed it a lot on various forums. Of course I'm not doing that. Did I say the words, "Everyone is objectively bad for reading these books"? Nope.
2. Yes, arguing on the internet isn't good, but then this is why this entire sub-forum exists. This thread is no different than those, right? Just because I said I don't like wasting my time doesn't mean we can't have this discussion.
3. I got a good chuckle out of those Joyce lines. Thanks.

Edit: By the way, I don't think you can compare love letters to a published work of fiction tailor-made for millions...

 

I don't want TP to change the rules just for me. This isn't a wah wah, I'm not being published situation. It never was about that. This whole thing started with me talking about the different platforms and the rate of consumption idea, i.e. writing versus art. Some people even agreed with that. This has been primarily about writing being slower and less easily seen (for new writers). I'm not going to go into it again, but suffice it to say the only thing said which convinced me I was wrong on that front was the person, perhaps yourself, who said that self-published authors who start with a blank slate get comparable views (amount of reads, in this case) the moment they upload something to Amazon. I don't know that there's proof for this, but I'll take it. As for the distaste for self-publishing, this is only because I've not seen much work that is of decent quality other than a couple of suggested authors. If more self-published writers were 1) taken seriously and 2) actually good, I'd have no distaste for it at all. But we have different ideas of what quality and seriousness is and that's how we ended up on the topic of quality and whether something is worthwhile or not.

 

...well this thread has gone off the rails. Teladan smears 85% of the writing world--which includes most of the people here.

That's just offensive and not an open discussion. Plus, you aren't even arguing self published versus traditional half the time but romance/ya versus literary/high fantasy. And you're also taking examples of market refined front facing material and equating that to lack of skill when the two aren't connected at all?

Mmm love the smell of literary snobbery. Reminds me of ass and sweat. Haha. I'm just playing... But also sort of not?

Probably best I show myself out.

 

i don't really understand what's going on here. Teldaran. If you want a Big Four publishing deal, that's fine. Pursue it. There's nothing wrong with wanting that and *not* wanting to do selfpub. I decided I wanted to go trad for a bunch of reasons, so I aimed in that direction and started working. But can we please not say shitty stuff about selfpub authors or their work, please. Everyone has their own reasons for their aspirations; everyone has their own artistic approach.

So yeah, I write ostentatious little stories about whatever caught my fancy strongly enough to write about it. And holy shit, people seem to like that. could i make more money with selfpub? i don't fucking care! I don't want to do project management for sales and marketing! Awesome to the people who do, and who would generously offer me their knowledge if I decided that I wanted to do that, but I just want to write books and languish dramatically on my chaise lounge.

There's nothing wrong with what you want, but please stop being a shit to people who don't want what you want. Thank you!

 

To balance things out a little, self-publishing does tend to attract an enormous amount of rubbish due to the lack of gatekeepers. But talented writers with great novels have also been rejected by these gatekeepers, it being subjective and all, so having the chance to self publish allows them access to the marketplace regardless. Some may not even try the traditionals, future classics (like mine) yet to be discovered. It's too new of a channel to have created any real classics as yet, but they will come. And there's waaaaaaaay too much dirt in the way for most of us to find the gold. So stating there are no books of quality in self pub is truly and utterly false, because finding them buried amongst the mediocre to bad is so much harder without a filter - the publishers. There's a reason they persist.

 

But that comes back to the fast food analogy. Commercial success does not equal literary excellence. Nor does literary excellence lead to commercial success.

 

To me there's a category of things that aren't hobbies and usually aren't careers, but can be.

Writing, fitness, painting, and sports are great examples.

When writing stories, we create something beautiful. We put a part of ourselves into it, and it will often improve the writer's understanding of the world and themselves.

When a bodybuilder works out, they are molding their body into a work of art. They become strong. They improve themselves.

The art is value and it doesn't need to be appreciated. Sometimes art is appreciated by millions and that's good, but that's very uncommon and I don't recommend pursuing it as a primary career, just as I wouldn't recommend trying to become a professional bodybuilder or basketball player (unless you really, really have a shot at that).

It's not a hobby, it's something we do. It's a service to the world to refine that art, make it as best as we can, and publish it however we can. A lot of gems were self-published that couldn't make it in traditional. Usually because they're too niche or it's a new, risky market. If we think of it like business, I could go around pitching ideas to Apple, Facebook, etc. and who knows, I might sell some. But some ideas will be turned down by all the big ones, and have to succeed on their own. Craigslist is a good example. Any author who got rejected from traditional but made it in self publishing is similar.

 

Yes, I meant all of the above when I wrote "entertaining." Fun, lighthearted and easy to watch are valuable qualities. People watch films and read books for all kinds of reasons, and although your reason for doing so may be to expand your brain to the size of a basketball, most other people's aren't. Sometimes I want to laugh a little, maybe be swept up into a world where superheroes fly through space and fight large purple villains. And sure, I like top-tier, high-quality films. I watched Chinatown the other day--I think that really is a masterpiece, and it was great. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Marvel films. I'm reading Portrait of a Lady right now, but I've got some schlock lined up afterwards. It's whatever floats your boat, man, just don't act like you've got the only answer to all the literary questions of the universe. I don't hate on the people who listen to country rap music even if I hate that music, because I figure that they have a real good reason for liking it, and it's none of my business anyway. If you like something you like something. And it's a good thing, actually, that we don't all like the same things.

 

Either. Both are necessary culturally, and it depends on the motivation of the author. And attempting one path can lead to the other.

 

Yes, but create a popup serving amazing food that no one can find and you're likely to die a quick death, too.

 

I assume you are referring to r strategists living in unstable environments and needing to reproduce many offspring rapidly and k strategists living in relatively stable environments with the luxury of reproducing a smaller number of offspring at a slower rate. Offspring for the purpose of this thread would be work products such as books or paintings. A clever analogy, but questionable. I can produce a lot of written offspring in the time it takes my friend Mike to produce a single heroic bronze sculpture. Conversely, he can produce a bunch of cute little ceramic bowls in the time it takes me to write a book.

In addition to being a biologist, I am a weaver, a retired dancer, a costume designer, and a writer who also does fine art. As such, I cannot agree that writing is slower and more of an investment than almost any other pursuit. Client wants a 250 word sidebar on First Amendment Rights? Give me an hour. 1200 words on a subject I am familiar with? Give me three hours, maybe less. Oh, a 3' x 4' weaving featuring a tree of life? That's going to take weeks, and the client is probably not going to want to pay what it's worth in terms of material costs, much less the weaver's time. Every dancer and musician has heard some version of, "We can't pay you, but performing at our function will be great publicity, and besides, it's only for ten minutes." People are comfortable behaving this way because they believe artists and artisans don't really have all that much invested in a product.

It's okay to lament the frustrations of the long distance writer. Many, if not most, of us have done it and are sympathetic. But lament for a while, then either shrug and write the next sentence, or give up writing as "not worth it" and try one of those faster, less invested pursuits. Either choice is perfectly acceptable.

 

This is really quite funny now. I never once said traditional publishing is somehow instantly better than self-published fiction. Where you got that idea from, I'll never know. I said that, in my opinion, self-published books are more likely to be worse. Is that not true? I think it's probably a fair statement just based on the nature of self-publication. You and others seem to have completely gone off the rails and are now actually putting words in my mouth.

I'm really interested in this idea that commercial success is better than artistic excellence. I can't fathom how it could be and I don't see why it's commendable to seek wealth over integrity. If you feel like elaborating, please do.

What you've just said is worse than anything I said. I find it funny how you think I'm attacking the very form of self-published books. You realise I was only ever talking about certain types of books? Looks like I've woke up to the decay of nuance... Lastly, I find your tone to be far more acerbic than anything I said. So, you get to put words in my mouth by saying I'm tarnishing 85% of the writing world, whatever that means, and then use language like that at the end which adds nothing to your argument? That's nice.

Ah, the old, "You think you know everything" tactic. Nope. All I did was question things.

I appreciate your in-depth response, but at this point I really can't believe I'm having to say this again. My analogy is not about the craft itself and how long it takes to produce something. I wouldn't have used it in such a way since obviously someone could paint something for a year and a writer could write their story for a week. It was purely aimed at the rate/ease of consumption. I know r/K relates to reproduction, but I didn't say it was a perfect analogy.

K = Trad publishing wait times and even self-publishing lack of reads/purchases* (for new writers)
r = Artstation/Youtube instant upload, many views, easy to consume, reaches a lot of people quickly, etc.

*Again, someone yesterday said that apparently a new writer can self-publish a book on Amazon and get tens or hundreds of reads quickly. I'm not sure how this can be verified, but it does destroy my argument if it's true.

 

...

This you?

 

Oh, dear. Repeating myself is getting really quite tedious.

"Does anyone take self-published books seriously where it matters though?" I shouldn't even need to explain that this question isn't my own opinion. You've even deliberately skipped the part where I said something to the effect of, "I wish this wasn't the case." My entire point was that if self-publishing were indeed looked on more seriously I wouldn't hesitate to go the self-publishing route. I have never personally besmirched the route of self-publishing. I was only ever talking about it through the lens of how others see it.

"Suffice it to say, those aren't worth anything at all. I'm talking about writing that matters." Here I'm talking about types and genres of books that hold almost no artistic value. I'm not talking about the entire medium of self-published books. I already said this about an hour ago to Moose and Marshipan in various ways. I wish people would read the rest of the thread before commenting.

"My point was that the only form of presentation of one's writing that matters is being traditionally published. Anyone can self-publish; it doesn't really mean anything."
Again, see point one.

Edit: Although I will grant that, "It doesn't really mean anything" is actually my own opinion in the sense that, well, yes, anyone can self-publish. That's as far as that goes.

 

If you find yourself needing to explain the true meaning of your message to multiple people, I submit the problem likely lies with the message delivery rather than the listeners.

That said, your defence here seems to be that whole swathes of the literary canon which a lot of people here enjoy reading and a lot of people here enjoy writing 'hold almost no artistic value', is 'not enriching in any way that is worthwhile', is 'actively harmful in the sense that it's 1) not a good use of one's time and 2) it's morally and intellectually degrading' and to paraphrase slightly, is 'morally indefensible for people to consume'.

Cool cool. That's totally a more reasonable position to take.

 

Well it's clear there's no sense taking part in this anymore. It isn't a conversation, it seems to be an endless cycle @Teledan keeps going through. In fact it sounds like he's had the same circular argument many times before, always gives the same responses, and will be doing it many more times. I'm done trying.