From: mumble@nomail.invalid   
      
   On 06/07/2014 01:09 PM, J.Pascal wrote:   
   > On Saturday, June 7, 2014 11:17:25 AM UTC-6, Jacey Bedford wrote:   
   >> On 07/06/2014 14:13, C. E. Gee wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> And in my communications with editors, critics, publishers,   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> they may be a bit lazier than "other writers," but they always   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> seem to me to be highly intelligent.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Thus, when they approve or reject some work, it means something.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I think selling something to a publication via an editor does man   
   >>   
   >> something. (You only have to see how many rejections there are for every   
   >>   
   >> single acceptance to understand that.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> And yes, for the most part, self-published stuff is... (I nearly said   
   >>   
   >> dreck, but I'm going to say...) unfiltered. But these days some writers   
   >>   
   >> are choosing to go down the unfiltered route because they can, not   
   >>   
   >> because they can't get publication any other way, and their work is   
   >>   
   >> publishable by anyone's standards.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I admit they are probably in the minority.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I'm a bit old fashioned about it and despite it taking me a long time to   
   >>   
   >> hit the right desk with the right manuscript at the right time, I have   
   >>   
   >> worked hard for my traditional publishing deal and I happen to think it   
   >>   
   >> means something, but I don't feel I should automatically condemn writers   
   >>   
   >> who choose different routes.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Jacey   
   >>   
   >   
   > Part of the reason to chose a different route, to self-publish, is that   
   there are a limited number of professional venues, and professional "filters",   
   and they don't necessarily all have the same taste.  That an editor sends a   
   letter of incomprehension,   
    and the next one and the next one send similar letters, really doesn't mean   
   that there isn't a readership for exactly your type of story.   
   >   
   > Other writers chose a different route because publishers screw them over.    
   They've been traditionally published and know they're working at that level   
   and then the publisher screws up and sales tank and the writer gets put on a   
   "don't buy, doesn't sell"   
    list... or, like a local author who I believe will *never* go s   
   lf-published... the novel takes greater than five years from sale to   
   publication and "good business sense" says don't spend time writing five more   
   books in that setting if it *eventually*    
   turns out that readers don't buy a book with a crappy cover.  (Obviously I   
   think that some authors *should* self-publish and that it's a crying shame   
   that they view it as illegitimate.)   
   >   
   > -Julie   
   >   
      
   I think that I would tend to "self-publish", mainly because I don't want   
   some halfwit editor changing words that change meaning, but also because   
   I don't want potential readers to be filtered out based on how much   
   money they have.   
      
   People have varying goals in writing whatever they write, some see it as   
   a job that pays them money, others see it as a form of artistic   
   expression that doesn't take money into consideration, some even   
   consider it to be a weapon "mightier than the sword" that can be used   
   toward changing things that need to be changed.   
      
   People in this newsgroup seem to consider how much money is made from   
   writing to be a badge of honor; I see money made from writing to be yet   
   another pain in the ass, another opportunity to act as the government's   
   unpaid accountant, another chance to pay taxes that will be used for   
   things that I consider wrong, like drones and bombs and perks for   
   politicians.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)