Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: state of NY publishing

From: J.C. Hocking (jchocking@yahoo.com)
Date: 14 Nov 2009

  • Next message: Allan Guthrie: "Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: state of NY publishing"

    In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that it takes a major publisher or "marketer" to produce a good book.  The small press has, for most of my life, provided me with more books that I actually want to read than the major publishers.  It isn't as if poor writing and bad books are new, it's just that we are currently seeing more strikingly substandard work, work at times seemingly produced to no editorial standards whatsoever, given much the same packaging and availability as work produced and edited to (out-moded?) professional standards.  I believe this injures the popular perception of books in general, and genre fiction in particular.

    I know that most of us are justly certain that we're not going to waste any of our time on this "new breed" of bad book, but I've already seen more than a few readers taken aback by the quality of a POD book that they bought.  A few years back, when I was working in a bookstore, I was accosted by an angry customer who insisted that we label all POD/vanity press/local author titles as such so that people would not be deceived.  After he left, a snide co-worker suggested that what the customer really wanted was for us to label all the bad books in the store, a process my co-worker predicted would result in labels on about 80% of the titles on the shelves.  POD certainly has no monpoly on bad books, but the worst they have to offer can be, given it's packaging and availability, something of a shock. I imagine we'll just have to get used to it. 

    John 

    ________________________________ From: New Pulp Press <bassoffj@gmail.com> To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:57:08 PM Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: state of NY publishing

     
    *John says* "If publishers/distribu tors and dedicated genre enthusiasts have to work hard to sift through this mass, separating wheat from chaff, how much effort will the more casual reader be willing to put forth? It's not hard to imagine such readers shortly coming to the conclusion that investing their money and time in anything other than a well known blockbuster is going to be a waste."

    Is that what we're really so worried about? That there are so many choices that we will no longer be able to tell good from bad? That we will become paralyzed because bad books are slickly produced so we can't tell the difference? I would like to believe that we are intelligent enough to determine if a book is amateurish or sloppy and not buy that book. And how many of us are really buying books that we haven't heard of simply because the author tells us it is a good book? Probably none. How about depending on word of mouth from a source you trust, whether that be a writer or a friend or a reviewer? Wouldn't you then be willing to check out the book regardless of the publisher? What I seem to be hearing, from you and Kevin, is that the marketers know best. Whatever they stick on display at Barnes and Nobles must be good so that's what we need to buy (Dan Brown, anyone?)

    Are there a higher percentage of quality books produced by traditional publishers compared to indy presses? Probably. But are there hundreds of great books that never get picked up by major publishers? Absolutely. We're smart people. We can find those great books. We shouldn't depend on marketers to do it for us.

    And Kevin, if you don't know what to do with all those crappy books that people have sent you over the years, I have one suggestion: throw them out.

    --- In rara-avis-l@ yahoogroups. com, "J.C. Hocking" <jchocking@. ..> wrote:
    >
    > Well, in terms of how a bad book (or a whole lot of them) can hurt, Kevin has a point here...
    >
    > "But for readers all POD represents is an often increasingly
    > bewildering morass of choices...And the advent of self-published ebooks
    > merely means the bar will be set even lower, as to what will be made
    > available."
    >
    > The choice is bewildering for distributors and publishers, too. 
    > At this point there are literally thousands of slickly produced POD books, many now outwardly indistinguishable from titles from major publishers.
    > The unfortunate truth is that many of these efforts are shockingly amateurish in everything from plot construction to grammar.
    > If publishers/distribu tors and dedicated genre enthusiasts have to work hard to sift through this mass, separating wheat from chaff, how much effort will the more casual reader be willing to put forth?
    > It's not hard to imagine such readers shortly coming to the conclusion that investing their money and time in anything other than a well known blockbuster is going to be a waste.
    >
    > John  
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ____________ _________ _________ __
    > From: jacquesdebierue <jacquesdebierue@ ...>
    > To: rara-avis-l@ yahoogroups. com
    > Sent: Sat, November 14, 2009 12:58:28 PM
    > Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: state of NY publishing
    >
    >  
    > Kevin, how does a bad book exactly hurt you (or anybody)? As to the star system, it never had much to do with quality. It's pure commerce.
    >
    > I am puzzled by your rant about how bad most books are... hasn't it always been so? Pick up the bestsellers of yesteryear and try to read them... I mean bestsellers, not obscure books. Most of them suck, to the point of being unreadable. Then pick up Franz Kafka, who hardly sold anything, and you tell me about literary stardom.
    >
    > I think you are overlooking the sheer randomness of "success". In any case, this list is not about success but about quality. And if that sounds pompous, so be it. Of course, quality and success can go together -- that's the happy ending. But there isn't always a happy ending.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > mrt
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    >

          

    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Nov 2009 EST