Pens With Cojones on Indie Literature
Yours truly had the pleasure of guest posting over at One Girl One Novel today. In the post I take on the popular idea that all the bad self published books don’t matter. And since today is Valentine’s day and I am nothing if not a lover [insert fine print about writers being lovers], I behaved and kept things (mostly) civil.
Here’s the link: Pens With Cojones on Indie Literature.
Enjoy.
Ps: Make sure to have a looksee around Wanda’s wonderful site.
Related Posts:
- Sometimes That Happens With Chicken: The Cojones Review
- Finding Quality Self Published Books: The PoDhouse Approach
- Self Published Authors: What Can Social Media Really do For You?
- The Future of Books: Ten Reasons to Relax and Enjoy the Ride
- Sometimes That Happens With Chicken: Interview with the Author
Join The Conversation
Mayowa, I tried to post over at One Girl One Novel, but I couldn’t tell if it went through. Here’s what I said:
Great post. Thanks for linking to this and helping me find it! I like what you have to say. I agree with a lot of it. I do fear the solution you propose, though. On the one hand, it makes sense. And, being part of the scientific community, I do see the value of peer-review. But, for me, this somehow goes against the idea of self-publishing. It sounds more like community-publishing, and I can imagine factions growing from it as well as back scratching. I do think something more needs to happen in the self-publishing world to help readers find what they want to read, but I can’t think of a solution yet.
Domey,
Glad you enjoyed the post, sir. Please fill me in (maybe a post for us all?) if you come up with a solution. The issue is a toughie and the more ideas the better.
As to peer reviews, the practicalities make them difficult to implement but I don’t think they conflict with the “self/independent” publishing concept. The independence and freedom of self publishing are from the traditional establishment and not from fellow self published writers (we are bound together due to categorization and stereotyping). As long as we review for hard quality (typos, grammar etc.) and not subject matter and marketability we should be safe from many of the selection issues that plague traditional publishing. Ideally we would look at more subjective quality issues but that gets really messy really quickly.
So anyone could publish whatever they want, whenever they want as long as it is of professional quality (this would be the requirement for support). This is where i’d start, authors making firm decisions to only support professional work instead of blind support.
Thanks for stopping by.