"Why ebooks must fail"...?

Lindy Vinke wrote:

I certainly hope that e-books are the future. At the moment, the way e-publishing works, self-published authors have a chance to be heard at a cost that they can afford. What if this modus operandi changes and it becomes just as difficult to publish an e-book as it is to go through a traditional paper publisher? Does anyone have a crystal ball? I was wondering if the e-publishers might start to introduce awkward hurdles, such as having to go through an agent (aarghhh!!).

My crystal ball says that it won't happen or, if it does, it won't succeed. The Internet is, by design, an underground, free-standing anarchy.

There's a bigger problem. The old wheat v chaff process. Because it's free and unregulated, the chaff prevails by virtue of overwhelming numbers.

History validates my crystal ball. It happens to all artforms.

Quote :

I certainly hope that e-books are the future. At the moment, the way e-publishing works, self-published authors have a chance to be heard at a cost that they can afford.

How will the general public find ebooks to read, though? How and what will they browse before they buy? Personally, I find a lot of books after browsing retail shelves. I don't hunt obscure, "indie" books. I find some books on Amazon after seeing them in stores or after the book gets a lot of publicity. I find other books on Amazon by looking at their recommended reads or "also boughts."

If there is no vetting process and anyone can publish, how does a reader sort through that? Right now there are lots of ebooks (self-published, marginally published) available on Amazon, Lulu, Smashwords, etc., but most never make their way to the general public's view. Why do you think this would change if everything went to ebooks?

Lindy Vinke wrote:

I certainly hope that e-books are the future. At the moment, the way e-publishing works, self-published authors have a chance to be heard at a cost that they can afford. What if this modus operandi changes and it becomes just as difficult to publish an e-book as it is to go through a traditional paper publisher? Does anyone have a crystal ball? I was wondering if the e-publishers might start to introduce awkward hurdles, such as having to go through an agent (aarghhh!!).

These are so called awkward hurdles are put there not because publishers demand it but because their customers do. Quality control is important in any retail relationship.

Quote :

These are so called awkward hurdles are put there not because publishers demand it but because their customers do. Quality control is important in any retail relationship.

Agree -I don't know why so many writers think they "deserve" to be heard.

If you live in a small town in a large country and you write better than anyone in your small community, you are given a false impression of your writing ability. It's hard to convince people who really want to do something that they do badly that they really shouldn't do it. The same with trying to persuade someone to do something they really do not want to do. Basically, people do what they want to do and refuse to do things they don't want to do.

The age of online shopping is almost with us. Most Supermarkets,Electrical stores, Furniture stores and the like all offer online shopping 24/7.
Mobile phones with apps incorporating barcode readers allow us to scan the contents of our fridge and update our online shopping basket.
Superstore Home delivery is on the rise. We can even order take away pizza, Chinese or Curry online.
The web is fast establishing itself as the new local shopping mall.
I just hope that we don't end up like the Humans in the film WALLE.

I love technology so beam me up Scotty.

I agree that quality control is important and that not everyone who wants to write necessarily deserves to be heard. If the selection process is done by the public, then I have no problem. However, if the selection process is done by a (relatively) few individuals (eg agents) then it is equivalent to censorship. Censorship based on what these few individuals believe that the public want or should be allowed to read.

I agree with you, Lindy. I have compiled two books of author interviews. Out of over forty authors, maybe only one of the interviews produced extra sales of books for that author. The others may not have sold one single extra copy. But they were all given the same chance.

LC wrote:

I don't know why so many writers think they "deserve" to be heard.

Why not? They go to open mic at the local piano or karaoke bar and think they deserve to sing.

Lindy Vinke wrote:

I agree that quality control is important and that not everyone who wants to write necessarily deserves to be heard. If the selection process is done by the public, then I have no problem. However, if the selection process is done by a (relatively) few individuals (eg agents) then it is equivalent to censorship. Censorship based on what these few individuals believe that the public want or should be allowed to read.

But the selection process is done by the public. The public demands the gatekeepers pick good quality. This is not equivalent to censorship.

Besides, you are always free to self publish.

Quote :

But the selection process is done by the public. The public demands the gatekeepers pick good quality. This is not equivalent to censorship.

Besides, you are always free to self publish.

When agents pick the books that are forwarded to the publishers for their consideration, then the public is not involved in the initial selection process. The public can only vote (with their money) for the books that actually get published. Thus, as soon as the initial selection process is not open to the general public, there is some form of pre-selection (read censorship) involved. At the moment we are free to self publish, but suppose that a site such as Amazon insists that all books go through agents for pre-selection in the future? Its just a thought - perhaps it will never happen and perhaps Amazon will continue to publish (almost) anything.

That's not what censorship is.

And, the public's selections are indirect influences on what gets published. Publishers select those kinds of books that the marketplace demands.

Publishers "believe" the marketplace demands their selections. They are only correct a certain percentage of the time. They also reject books that are later picked up by other publishers or are self-published and become major sellers. If they were on the mark, there would be little competition.

Many motivational speakers publish their own books and use them as tools for their presentations. They sell a ton of books but to their specialty audiences.
They sell as many books as they have the energy to promote to audiences. Does that mean their books are great or less than?

My novel, Ghost Orchid, was vetted by Barnes and Noble's New York Small Press Department as a "regional book." That means they bought copies for all their book stores in a specific radius of Corkscrew Swamp where the ghost orchid is famous. That also affects shelf placement in their book stores. Often, stores have a "regional" section.

That designation has its good and bad points. The good point is its selection for "regional" in a book store. The negative point is trying to find it on the shelf by author name (where it's missing because it's in the "regional" section.

Also, once "regional," it's difficult to get it in other B&N bookstores outside the region for which it was approved.

These "selection" processes affect the audience to whom a book is promoted. I just used the vetting process as an example; but there are many filters that make a difference in a book's promise.

The vocalist at my church has the voice of an angel. She is a second grade teacher. She has produced her own cd's. Why doesn't she have a record contract? I am grateful to hear her voice on Sunday. She also sings in area clubs. She is also beautiful and has excellent stage presence. Just because she does not have a record contract does not mean she is not a great talent. Talent is a matter of perspective.

Al Stevens wrote:

That's not what censorship is.

And, the public's selections are indirect influences on what gets published. Publishers select those kinds of books that the marketplace demands.

Indeed. The public will not buy crap. Agents and publishers know this. Why spend thousands of dollars in production only to see a book fail? No publishing house worth it's salt would do that or they wouldn't be in business very long.

Your insistence that this amounts to censorship is flat wrong. Don't like the gatekeepers? Start your publishing house.

Until amazon becomes a publisher, they won't require agents. Amazon at least for now only exists to sell stuff.

zizban wrote:

Your insistence that this amounts to censorship is flat wrong. Don't like the gatekeepers? Start your publishing house.

If that comment is in response to the message I posted and you quoted, please go back and reread what I posted. An agent or editor declining to represent or publish a book is not censorship, and that's what I said.

AmazonEncore is the publishing name for the new Amazon.com publishing. They are selecting works from Amazon.com that show promise but do not have a current traditional publisher. They publish them under the AmazonEncore label and promote them. This is a new feature...a step above self-publishing from Amazon.com's perspective.

Al Stevens wrote:

zizban wrote:

Your insistence that this amounts to censorship is flat wrong. Don't like the gatekeepers? Start your publishing house.

If that comment is in response to the message I posted and you quoted, please go back and reread what I posted. An agent or editor declining to represent or publish a book is not censorship, and that's what I said.

No, it wasn't. Weird how it looks. It was aimed at Lindy. I was agreeing with you. #needcaffeine

dkchristi wrote:

AmazonEncore is the publishing name for the new Amazon.com publishing. They are selecting works from Amazon.com that show promise but do not have a current traditional publisher.

It seems to be a flawed process. They will use reader reviews to help vet a book. Reader-reviewers, however, are not vetted. Anyone can write a review. Watch some of the other forums on which writers and readers post. If a disagreement breaks out, a scathing public review usually follows. They use the review feature to get even. Or to discredit a competitor. Or to post reciprocal glowing reviews for one another. In some cases, particularly with non-fiction, the reviewer is not qualifed to read the book, much less review it.

Of course, I don't expect them to embrace a crappy book just because it got good reviews. They will probably read them first. But they might overlook some good books because they got unfairly panned.

AmazonEncore is simply another display site. It has been done before many times and AmazonEncore will have the impact as those others. Read: little, if any.

Actually, when Amazon.com had the Amazon Shorts program and actually promoted some authors, including me, I sold a bunch of books on their site as a result. I would be happy to have them pick up on Arirang: The Bamboo Connection

dkchristi wrote:

Actually, when Amazon.com had the Amazon Shorts program and actually promoted some authors, including me, I sold a bunch of books on their site as a result. I would be happy to have them pick up on Arirang: The Bamboo Connection

How do we get them to do this?

The editors at Amazon.com are scanning the sales of books and, according to Al, reviewing the customer reviews. Arirang: The Bamboo Connection did well in 2006 when it was first published, in spite of the nearly $35 original price tag and the ebook sales have been steady since (my rights). Of course, the $25 print copy hasn't sold at Amazon.com for over a year with good reason (a bit pricey for a 2006 trade paperback). So, it all depends on what Amazon.com considers "promising."