AAR

[Retrograde]

What's your take on authors who bypass getting an agent and publisher, and put out a romance on their own? Does it put you off? Have you ever read an independently published romance that exceeded your expectations, or even reached your personal standards of what a good romance is - perhaps earning DIK status?

Personally, I would never go near one of these books. From what I've seen so far (ie, from online excerpts), they look truly awful. I don't know how much of it is down to my own bias colouring the reading experience, but I figure a book either grabs you and pulls you in or it doesn't. So much of what I've seen is amateurish and clunky. Editors are there for a reason, and I don't think any aspiring authors should underestimate the importance of an editor.

Your thoughts?

[NoirFemme]

If it's published by a legitimate indie publisher like Sourcebooks or Medallion (though they have horrible covers), I'll pick it up. But if it's a romance novel produced by a one-shot POD or start-up romance pub...maybe not. On the other hand, I really don't get the anathema towards indies when um, Ellora's Cave, Samhain, Liquid Silver, etc are independent publishers to whom authors go to without an agent or publisher. EC was begun by Jaid Black, who couldn't find a market for her own erotic romance, I believe.

I know it sounds like a cliche, but judging by the grades given to many new releases and the general apathy from many of us posters, a NY published book isn't really indicative of a definite good read. At this point, I'm more likely to grab a book by some unknown that looks alright rather than plunking down money for a boring, tepidly-written NY-published book whose purchase will encourage the publisher to produce more bland books in that mold. But that's just me.

[JaneO]

There seem to be two reasons why some books get self-published.
One is that the themes/ideas are too odd, too far out of the mainstream, to attract a major publisher.
The other is that the book is just not very good. Actually, that means lousy. Mainstream publishers already put out plenty of mediocre books.
A book self-published for the first reason might be appealing, but one self-published for the second is not. The problem is telling them apart.
_________________
JaneO

[Anne Marble]

[dick]

I'm with noirfemme on this. I can't see that editors/ publishers have done such good jobs choosing what to publish. The drawback to self-published books--as A. Marble points out--is that they're usually so expensive. I wonder why someone who thinks they have publishable material but is overlooked by a publisher, doesn't try self-publishing by using Kinkos. A MS bound like a spiral notebook might even be easier to read, though less portable. It would surely hold down the cost, wouldn't it?

[Rebecca191]

I would read a self published book if it was by an author I enjoyed, but she couldn't get this book published because of something like an unusual setting or plot; or if someone I trusted recommended it to me. If there was a good way to find reviews for self published books I'd probably read more, as self published historical romances often feature unusual settings which I *love* but I can't just take a chance on such a pricey book when so many are poorly written or edited.

[Charlotte McClain]