As Print On Demand (POD) and ebook publishing have grown in the last several years, the number of books going to print each year has exploded. With each year, it becomes easier and easier for anyone with visions of being the next J. K. Rowling to throw their work onto Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and any number of other online distribution channels. In the early days publishing houses hired their slush readers. Then in the 90s, they farmed the work out to agents–one of the more amazing slight-of-hand accomplishments: forcing authors to pay for the publisher’s slush readers. Today, however, the slush reading job is moving more and more toward the public at large, thanks to these recent trends.
Some tout this as a good thing, like Dean Wesley Smith. Others fear that the glut of bad writing, poorly formatted books, and typo plagued, grammar challenged prose would dilute the market, making it harder for the average reader to find the good stuff. I recently read more than one poster, to an author responding negatively to a bad review, make the statement that the said author was ruining it for all the other good self-published authors out there. A couple of self-proclaimed readers decided right then and there, because of this one author’s reactions, that they would no longer read any books by any self-published authors.
Is this really a valid analysis? I would suggest that such fears are unfounded, by and large. All the bad books out there will not ruin it for the rest of us. Here’s why.
- There are a lot of badly written, traditionally published books out there. Those books did not prevent the good books from finding readers and gaining a following. Yes, the percentage is no doubt higher in self-publishing than traditional, but we see the same dynamic happening in self-publishing as in the traditional model: readers discovering authors they like and making them popular by buying their books in droves.
- Readers don’t pay that much attention to who the publisher is. They only think about it at all, if they do, when they read something they don’t like. Then they will check to discover whether it was put out by a publishing house or a self-published author. If the later, it is then that they decide it is bad because it is self-published. If it is a traditional press, however, they chalk it up to being a dud and move on.
- Readers primarily buy books according to their favorite authors. Most will on occasion try a new author, looking for someone they might enjoy, and when they find him or her, will start buying up their books. Word of mouth either from friends and family, or trusted book review blogs (like this one) become their route to finding the gems in a sea of jetsam. And this is no different than traditionally published books, except that one’s trusted bookstore owner/manager was included in that inner circle of referrals. If they find an author they like, they won’t give a rat’s tail who the publisher is, nor are they likely to choose a book based on who the publisher is.
- It has been years since anyone could keep up with every book that came out in a genre, other than small niche sub-genres. The only difference before POD and ebooks became so easy to crank out and now is the volume. But to the individual, whether we’re talking five thousand books or fifty thousand books, it is just as easy to deal with the latter as with the former. They both require the same type of filter. No one attempts to sort through every book published each year to decide what they will buy and read in a given year. They rely upon word of mouth and sometimes giving a promising author a shot out of the blue they happen to run across.
- Is it harder to be noticed in a large sea of published books? Yes. It has been hard before to get noticed, but based on percentages, the larger the pool, the harder it will be for any one particular reader to find a particular author. However, the formula for succeeding when it was hard still works when it is harder: quality writing, volume of work, and persistence. The better the quality, the more work you have out, and if you don’t give up, the bigger the odds of getting noticed. Especially since most authors will quit after two or three books because people aren’t swarming to hungrily scoop up their latest offering. Once you have twenty to thirty titles out there, you are in a very small pool of authors, and the chances of being found grow exponentially.
- Truly bad books will sink into obscurity, forgotten by 99% of the readers, save those that make it into the hallowed halls of snarky laughter awards because they are so bad. Few are going to remember an author’s horrible book until after they become popular. The small group of readers who dismiss all self-published authors based on a handful of bad authors they’ve run across are more to be pitied than feared. That’s where you find the diamonds, and they’ll miss them.
Therefore, I don’t think the continued increase in self-published authors is to be feared. The volume has grown, yes, but the same dynamics that were in place for readers to find books in the old model are still working in the new. The same methods for an author to make it in the old world work in the new. The only real barrier that has been broken is the filter-wall between the author and their readers. It puts more control into the hands of the authors, and it puts more control into the arms of readers as well. They’ll decide if an author is worth reading instead of an agent or editor in a New York office. They become the final slush reader, as they have always been when it comes down to who pays the bills. And that is a good thing, in my opinion.
What do you see to be the pros and cons of the new operating model, and why?
Some problems:
–Comparing the number of badly written books that are traditionally published to those that are self-published is like comparing the number of bad baseball players in the MLB to the number of bad ones who play baseball in their backyard. When you say there are bad books that are traditionally published, you are talking about a statistical anomaly so small that your chances of hitting badly written book after badly written book are small enough to make the risk of purchase negligible. This is not the case with self-publishing, where you could end up reading multiple poorly written books in a row (as I have).
But, in reality, there aren’t “a lot” of poorly written traditionally published books when compared to the # of TPed books that are printed every year. Set on their own, they may comprise a number we’d call “a lot,” but that’s like saying 6.5 million people dying annually is “a lot.” On its own, 6.5mil is a huge number, but compared to the nearly 7 *billion* of people on this planet, that’s quite tiny (1% to be exact, without taking into account births).
–Readers do pay attention to who published a book. I’m a reader. I pay attention. I know plenty of others who pay attention. This is why many SPers have had to create their own presses and hide the fact that they are SPed. If readers didn’t care, then nobody would have to do that and you could wander around saying “I am self published” without fear. The reality is that people really do care.
With a traditional publisher, they can reasonably throw it off as a dud because most books released by TPs will not be drivel. There may be bad books, but there are very rarely books that are so poorly written that they are unreadable. We shrug it off because, generally speaking, TPs have a quality standard. The sad thing is that that standard has fallen in the last ten years.
–Your last point contradicts your first.
I think there are huge problems with tossing the job of slush onto the reader. That places a financial burden on people who, quite frankly, should not have to worry about the risk of wasting their money. This is why we have editors and why publishers still exist. Again, it’s a sad fact that the standards have fallen, but that doesn’t take away from the importance of other people doing the job of slush for readers. Readers read. The second you turn reading into a risky business, you take away the pleasure of reading. Why spend money on books when they become an unequal financial risk?
But that’s my two cents.
Thanks SMD for your thoughts.
My thinking on readers becoming slush readers is that they are mostly doing that anyway. I mean, I have read more than one bad traditionally published book. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of bad self-pubbed stuff. But there is a lot of traditionally pubbed stuff I simply don’t read because I know I won’t like it. And then you have examples like Dan Brown who writes a best seller breaking many writing rules in the process.
You may be right, but still, the point is that the reader still has to sort through stories they don’t like in dealing with traditional publishers. Granted, the likelihood of badly formatted or laden with typos is much greater with self-published, but those are easily spotted and dispensed with.
But it sounds like you think for the reader to be a “slush reader,” which I suggest they are doing anyway to a degree, that they have to spend money and buy a book. I would suggest that’s not true. Like any editor, they can usually download a sample and check out the writing, and if the first page or two doesn’t grab them, then they don’t buy it. Just like they would do at the bookstore in going through shelves of books.
Your average person isn’t going to spend any more time “reading slush” in self-published than they would browsing a bookstore, looking for that new author they want to read.
And yes, I understand that some people do look at the publisher, but the fact of the matter is most will read the first page and if they like what they see and it keeps them reading, then they’ll consider buying the book. Most will only look at who the publisher is if they are on the fence, or the few that is important to.
We can always find examples to contradict a point, but that doesn’t make it invalid, depending on the actual statistical percent we are talking about. Bottom line, readers want a good story. That’s why Amanda Hocking has sold as well as she has as a self-pubbed author. Because there are that many readers who don’t care as long as the story is good.
But I think the big advantage there is that the reader has more options, more control, gets to see those authors who some editor wouldn’t have given the time of day to, etc. Like I said, putting control in the hands of the people who actually pay our “salary” is a good thing.
I do pay attention to the publisher: there are publishers whose work automatically interests me, and unfortunately more than one whose production values and other problems have turned me off.
I still don’t know or think how this is going to all shake up–but I think it is unlikely we will get a “100% slush pile” experience. There will always be room for curators, although the form that curation takes is unclear.
Agreed. I suspect that the digital age is going to usher in a three-tiered structure:
1. Traditional Publishing Gatekeeper Model (for big sellers)
2. Independent Gatekeeping Model (for formerly midlist authors that can do better on their own through freelance editing services and the like; this would be a semi-self-publishing model which uses various methods for funneling out the garbage)
3. Self-publishing Non-Gatekeeping Model (for people w/o the finances to do #2 or people who either are talented enough to do it all on their own or *think* they are talented enough).
There might even be a fourth tier somewhere in there, but I think it’s too soon to say what that is.
The fact is that consumers rarely buy products from producers when those products prove to be of poor quality more often than they prove to be good quality. With SPing, there is a huge problem with funneling out the crap. That could change, but it’s not happening yet. Most of the funneling is being done by a handful of consumers pushing product and the domino effect that follows. There needs to be a better system.
I would agree, I don’t think the traditionally published book will disappear. But the situation is quickly changing, and not in their favor. But they will survive in one form or another. And smart self-pubbed authors will get another set of eyes to look over their work, whether paid or good friend, to clean things up.
But cream will rise to the top, and crap will sink to the bottom, as it always has, no matter who is checking out the book.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The “cream rises” argument is really a crap one. That’s not always true. As a general rule? Sure, it’s true, but the crap rises to the top more than I think any of us should be comfortable. Why? Because a lot of readers aren’t looking for “well-written books” so much as “books that are simple and entertain me.” A lot of crappy books fit into that second category. Serviceable prose, basic plots that one can follow and are “interesting,” and simplistic and/or vacant characters that reader can insert him or herself into. Your Dan Brown example above is one of these books. It’s readable for most people, vacuous, but also what a lot of readers want. Just look at our TV screens. Half the crap that is on our TV is just that: crap. We have enough CSI/Law & Order clones to last us a lifetime, most of them devoid of character, depth, solid writing, or even accurate or interesting writing (how many law enforcement departments do you know that have a weirdo goth lady sitting in forensics being insane or covering herself in pink and weirdness?). That’s the times we live in. These are serviceable stories. They are gateways. Publishers need to find out how to get them through the gate and into the depths of literature. Authors too. If they can.
I’ll respond to your other comment later
.
Well, for sure, “cream” is in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, there are standards and we can all point to books that shouldn’t have made it and some that should have. As you note, it is a general statement, but certainly not true in every instance.
But I’m thinking of that book that is full of typos, wandering plot, bland characters, those simply aren’t going to capture people’s attention or their money. For instance, when you can point to a Dan Brown who breaks all sorts of writing rules, usually there is something about the story that did capture people’s attention and desire to read it. Granted, not my cup of tea at all, but apparently a lot of people’s. Enough to make a movie from it.
But if you have a story in a self-publishing venue with those problems, the chance of it catching on are nill. As a matter of fact, one could make the case that the reason some of these “crap” books, movies, and TV shows are a direct result because some editor or producer thinks they know what will sell, and market it like a big gun. When your selection is limited to what they decide you get to check out, and they do tend to run with the trends because they figure that is where the money is, the reader is stuck.
If Dan Brown did a self-publish of his book, I wonder if it would have ever got off the ground. The world may never know.
But you do point to a real divide I’ve noticed. One, what the writing community labels as “good” writing, usually based upon following a set of rules, and two, what readers label as good writing because it entertains them. The latter appear more tolerant of writer mistakes than us writers tend to be on each other. The problem is the latter pay the bills.
[...] Comment: EBooks: The New Slush Reader [...]