Authors & Reviewers discussion

This makes me mad. I am a big suporter of Indie authors.

Your thoughts? http://youtu.be/saZnrD8Bv2M

My thought is that there are so many fallacies in this article (follow the link under the video for it) that is not even funny.

Kozlowski states that self-publishing does not make you an author "any more than me buying a stethoscope allows me to be called a doctor".

There is a difference between going around with a stethoscope hanging around your neck and healing people; also, to be a doctor you need specific certifications.

I guess a more fitting analogy would be that having an author profile and a website does not make you an author, if you have not written anything.
So, F for your logic, Mr. Kozlowski.

He boldly states that "Indie authors and self-published authors who claim they are real authors makes me laugh". Oh, I am sorry, where should I line up for your seal of approval? Should I buy one of the overpriced publishing packages advertised on your website, so they send me my big shiny author certificate?

If you write, you are a writer. If you published, you are a published author. The issue with self-publishing is that because authors do not get vetted before publishing, the quality of self-published books varies wildly, from the excellent to the eye-rolling bad.

(And if you had any thought of taking him seriously, just read the comments section of the article, where he says "You indies have a hardon for wanting to be taking seriously, even though your books suck". Really mature.)

Lol I was a bit mad after I saw this. If you put in the hard work and time to write and publish a book... Then you are worthy of the title of author.

I think indie authors are taking this stuff way too seriously. It seems every time I click on Goodreads or Kboards or anywhere else where authors gather, there is another discussion surrounding what some blow-heart said about self-publishers. The only reason these people keep spouting this crap about indie authors being losers is because they know indies will take the bait and work themselves up into a fit over it.

I think everyone's looking at these articles the wrong way. The constant berating of indie authors is not what's in play. It's that indies are kicking so much butt that these people can't ignore what's going on. It's got to be making them sick inside that the supposed "amateurs" are revolutionizing the industry and taking home the bacon instead of jumping through hoops trying to perform tricks for mainstream publishers.

It's a testament to just how much noise indies are making that they just can't ignore us anymore. So when they aren't slinging mud in our direction, they try to create all these silly rules about who's a real author and who's not.

Frankly, I couldn't care less. I didn't self-publish my own work so that some clown standing on a soapbox could approve of my career choice or tell me what standards I have to meet in order for him to accept me as an author. And I think the time wasted worrying about what some book snob thinks could be better spent writing the next book or working on the next promotion. I'm not in the business of selling hot air, so I'll leave that to the professionals like that guy in the video. Because he's so full of it, I'm surprised he's hasn't burst yet.

Kevis,
You are so right on that. If we take the bait, he gets his ratings or jollies. I'm not sure which he's after.

Authors are artists who use words instead of paint, stone, clay, metal, flowers, light, or another media I missed. I've been to many museums and galleries and looked at an object that is being called "art". Just because I don't get it (and probably never will), doesn't change it from being art. There's an elephant that paints what some call "art". Personally, I've never gotten the Mona Lisa, she's just sort of average looking and doesn't smile well. That doesn't stop people from standing in line to look at her for 30-seconds. I know, I did.

Therefore, if an artist creates something with the media or "Words" whether it be the next Lord of the Rings or something much less enjoyable. The act of creation and publication gives the artist the title of "Author". The government aggrees, because they will give it an ISBN.

So, in short, if we don't give the blow hards the response they want, maybe, just maybe, they will get a clue.

Remember, even today, with print on demand, it is nearly impossible to get a publishing house to even look at your manuscript, let alone publish it. So, what does an artist do, Give up? No, they continue to create, even if they have to work at other things. Van Gogh couldn't sell his works, now they are masterpieces. Where will the indie authors be 100 years from now.

Thomas wrote: " The act of creation and publication gives the artist the title of "Author". The government aggrees, because they will give it an ISBN."

I like that one Thomas. The government also takes taxes out of our profits just like they do Stephen King. They must know something about what makes an author more than the blow hards, lol. ;)

I just finished listening to him. What a hoot. If you don't make a living at it, you're not an author.

As a computer programmer, that is interesting logic. Based on that logic;
Vincent VanGogh is not an artist, maybe we can call him a scribbler.
JRR Tolkien is not an author, he was a professor though.
Homer was not an author

What about one-hit wonders, are they singers? Most of what I listen to, never hits the radio, it's not pop enough. But you can make your own CDs and sell them even on Amazon.

I work in IT as a system administrator, but I don't have certifications as such. Maybe I'm fooling them all. ROTFL

The list goes on an on.

We really need a like button here.

The establishment attitude is so sour grapes that no indie author should take their blather seriously.

We are in the midst of a publishing revolution which is turning the old paradigm on it's stodgy, stuck up head. The old-guard gate keepers who got rich off other people's creativity, while denigrating writers as a whole, are being squeezed out of the picture, one self-published book at a time.

Sylvia wrote: "The establishment attitude is so sour grapes that no indie author should take their blather seriously.

We are in the midst of a publishing revolution which is turning the old paradigm on it's sto..."

Agreed. Let the barking dogs bark. They can never bite us. :D

A while back someone (who has a publishing company) posted a video that said indie authors aren't real authors because they don't make a living doing it.

Personally I think he was promoting his company.

Based on his logic, J.R.R. Tolkien wasn't an author, nor were many authors because they had other jobs.

I like the term professional author for those who can make a living writing. I'm happy for them. For the rest of us, no matter how we publish (Indie, Self, Small publishing house, big publishing house), we are still authors. Even if we never make a cent selling our books. Remember, VanGogh never sold a painting. As soon as you put your work out there for the public (in what ever form) You, my Friend, are an author. Whether they love your works or hate them, you are an author.

Sylvia is so right about the publishers getting rich of the sweat and blood of the writers. Think of a book (100k words) that sold 10,000 copies at $10 each. The publisher made $100,000 dollars. The author was paid the standard 4 cents per word for a grand total of $4000. or 40 cents per copy sold. Today, an author has many ways to publish, and make much more than 40 cents each.

The problem is, there is no guard keeping the chaff from mixing with the wheat. There is no requirement that you use a spell checker, grammar checker, or editor. This creates a second problem, how do you make your wonderfully and professionally written book stand out away from the ones that are truly painful to try and read.

We, the indie authors, need to work together to ensure that what we publish is worthy. I had a friend (author of several books) beta read my soon to be published novelle. He was brutally honest in his apraisal. Taking his comments to heart, I'm re-editting the manuscript. It is now phenomenally better that what it was.

So, help each other out. Beta read for your friends, write reviews for them. If you have a blog, let your followers know what you thought of the book.

The world of writing is changing, we the authors need to ensure it goes the way it should. As it does, those big publishers will find themselves going the way of book stores that couldn't keep up. Do you remember B.Dalton's and Borders? In a few years, some of those big publishing houses will join them.

Keep writing the good write. (bad puns are free)

Well said Julia. Couldn't agree with you more. Like it's always said, "An opinion is like an a*#hole...everyone has one."

Agreed Kevis

Love your views and logic on this subject Thomas.

I'm not an author, but I find myself attracted to indie writers because they seem to be the only ones out there writing anything original. Though most published books out there are very nicely written and edited, they also tend to be boring and formulaic.

It's an insulting question. Go look at my damn books and tell me I'm not an author. The distinction between the types of publishing has become meaningless. Self-publishing no more disqualifies someone from author status than a traditionally published hack who churns boilerplate novels deserves automatic status.

I support Katherine's comment.

Scott,

Expressed perfectly. The media does not determine the status.

Is a painter more of an artist than a scultpor?
Is a one-hit wonder not a musician?

Just because your wtiting is not handled by a big beaurocratic company, does not change the fact that it is writen and you are an author.

Just because someone doesn't like it (or didn't get a piece of the pie) doesn't change your status.

If you only write one book, you are still an author. Many authors of what are called classics or must read, produced very few works. Yet, they are still authors.

As a reader, I find many of the big budget books to be formula. One series that I enjoy (around 40 books and novellas) is very formulized. Each book has either 21 or 22 chapters and takes 10-11 hours to read. You know exactly when the big changes will occur. Each new one is like that old comfortable shirt.

However, when I read new authors (indie and self published) I find there are no boundaries. The authors don't limit the story by size, genre, or audience. They don't seek a niche market that the publisher wants. They are free to change styles and genres at will.

With the digital revolution, we see significant changes in entertainment as well as information. You can write a book, record a song, film a documentary. You no longer need a network, a publisher, or a label to reach the masses. You can use your web presence to be what you can. There are bands that tour and sell CDs, but aren't in the stores. There are people producing films for web only, and not limited to broadcast or cable. Authors are publishing via web portals and stores. If a reader wants a paper copy of digital book, it can be done with easy print on demand.

Where does this lead? It is quite possible that the companies that refuse to embrace the changes going on, will shortly find that they become Borders and not Amazon. Effectively becoming extinct.

Join the revolution and embrace the digital age. Where readers and listeners determine your value, not an stooge in an office who hasn't talked to a real person in years.

It is ridiculous for anyone to even suggest that self published authors aren't authors. I am not an author, but I am an avid reader. Some of the best books I have ever read were by self published authors. Some of the most boring books I have ever read were published through companies and cost an arm and a leg.

If you want to read some great self-published authors try:
J.T. Kalnay
Chris Mason
Guntis Goncarovs
Wendy Bertch
Of course, there's me.
You could look at my blog for more. I review all the self-published authors who I read.

Of course they are. If you've written a book and published it, you're an author.

I avoid reading this type of click bait, and I would encourage others to do the same. The best answer to this provocation is to ignore it. As someone said earlier, this type of article is really a symptom of fear of change. It is reminiscent of the Mamelukes writing to the British to ask them not to use cannon, because it wasn't proper warfare. And just as effective.

Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman was self published. He even wrote many reviews under various names to get it to be more widely read.

They say in the Broadway Musical "A Chorus Line" A Dancer Dances... well a writer writes.

Word semantics. Seriously. Years from now no one will give a hoot whether we use "writer," "author," joker, smoker or midnight toker; all they'll care about is whether the book is good. Period.

If we based titles on whether or not one is making a living at said profession, there are many a musician, painter, illustrator, sculptor, reporter, site administrator, inventor, or internet talking head who would be disqualified. Titles are related to skills, qualifications, education, abilities, talents; not degree of income. I mean, COME ON, Goodereader; how many seriously crappy books have been runaway bestsellers (some, even, with movies attached...) while, conversely, a brilliant literary masterpiece languishes on the bookshelf getting little attention? Are we to consider the successful pulp writer MORE an "author" because she's making a living and the other the lesser category of "writer" because he/she is not??

This distinction being made is the unfortunate result of the pendulum rush of those who self-launched books before taking the necessary steps to bring them up to par: to sufficiently learn their craft and appropriately polish their presentation via editing, cover art, etc. I agree that "self –" anything, without the filtering hand of talented and demanding mentors, teachers, editors, publishers, and so on has led to a marketplace glutted with books (and a lot of other things!) on a par with bad B-movies. But let's be honest; B-books (think airport paperbacks, trashy bodice-rippers, cheesy mysteries, etc.), have been around for eons, put out by publishers, sold by the boatload, and making bank for their authors... long before the self-publishing industry emerged.

Anyone who writes a book gets to call themselves an "author." The distinction of whether or not they're a "good author" is to be determined....

(See if this article strikes a chord on this topic: http://afterthesuckerpunch.com/2014/0...)

Jackie (fireandicebookreviews.blogspot.com) wrote: "We really need a like button here."

I agree :))

Boots wrote: "Jackie (fireandicebookreviews.blogspot.com) wrote: "We really need a like button here."

I agree :))"

Yes, a like button would be great.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion included internet trolls with 1100 hits on youtube. He does point out that professional writing organizations have rules for who can join. That has nothing to do with or not someone is an author. People have this THING about the word "author" versus "writers." First of all writers can also be professional writers if they get paid to write. This includes all kinds of writers -- copywriters, grant writers, technical writers etc. Authors are people who have published something -- books or even articles under their own name or a pen name as in "I am the author of a work called Blood Diva." Being an author has nothing to do with having your nose in the air or how you got published or how many copies you have sold. It just means you "authored" a particular work. It's a term with a similar meaning to "writer". You could actually use the terms interchangeably in some cases: "The doctor authored the study on the new medication." The implication is that the doctor had some authority in the writing -- that he maybe led the study.
"The study was written up by the doctor and his research assistants." The "author" of record didn't necessarily do the writing.
I know who wrote my books and who the author is.

An artist is a person who creates their own work - the medium may vary ... as will the quality and the reception.
A writer writes. It's that simple. An author can be called an author if they write a piece, a book, a poem, an epic or a short story. Whether they sell is a whole other question! :) but that does not determine WHETHER they wrote it.

A favourite quote that my Mum shared years ago:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” Omar Khayyam

Using this guy's argument, that would mean that Vincent van Gough wasn't an artist. Franz Kafka never even bothered publishing in his lifetime and ordered all of his manuscripts to be burned. There's an endless list of great writers who began as self-published. There is certainly a difference between good and bad writing - but endorsement by a publishing house doesn't mean to say the writing is good. Similarly, rejection may also show lack of vision or comprehension on the part of the publisher.

I know who I am & confident in what I've done. There are lots of ways to get to where you need to go on your journey, take the path that works for you.

I support indie authors always.

This is an argument for better minds than me, all I can say is that I've sold over 12,000 books