|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 3, 2020 14:01:46 GMT
"Yup. The whole point of a blurb or description is to entice a potential reader to buy the book...it really says nothing toward the book's quality." But at the very least, a Preview should, as long as it is generated from pages of the book, like most are. "In traditional publishing, a book has to run a gauntlet of editors, designers, marketers, etc. before it reaches bookshelves. There are no such built-in filters for self-published books. If you buy a book from, say Macmillian, you know that it has been carefully vetted..." That is indeed true, but it's also just as true that some works that became top sellers, and even classics, with the writers eventually becoming very famous, were at first rejected by many many publishing houses. I suppose Harry Potter is the most recent example. It perhaps only goes to prove that it's all based on a commissioning editor's opinion, the first fingers of that gauntlet, and they are not all the same. A persistent agent is also a great advantage, but getting one to take you on is also part of that gauntlet. "but when you buy a self-published book you have no idea whether or not the author went to the trouble of enlisting professional help or just threw his book out there into the market, willy nilly. And unless a cover makes it patently obvious that the book is incompetent, there aren't too many ways for a potential purchaser to be forewarned." But there is. The Preview. Reviews, Star ratings, etc etc etc. You, like myself, have at least looked at Previews and thought, and even said, my god! this is all rubbish! (And I don't just mean the subject  ) "So I think what is sort of going on with Amazon and Spark is that they are finding themselves having to take on some the roles that traditionally belonged to the book publisher." Their back catalogues must be gigantic. Imagine having to go through it all. One has to hope they simply don't delete all the SPed stuff published prior to April. Let's also hope they don't base it on sales. I don't use Spark, but Lulu do use Ingram's ISBNs, will they also be vetting everything with an Ingram ISBN on it? Incidentally, I wonder if Amazon will also be going through all the products for sale on it (and what about Prime TV/video service?) because some is rubbish sold by dubious places in China! |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 3, 2020 15:39:36 GMT
"Yup. The whole point of a blurb or description is to entice a potential reader to buy the book...it really says nothing toward the book's quality." But at the very least, a Preview should, as long as it is generated from pages of the book, like most are. True enough."In traditional publishing, a book has to run a gauntlet of editors, designers, marketers, etc. before it reaches bookshelves. There are no such built-in filters for self-published books. If you buy a book from, say Macmillian, you know that it has been carefully vetted..." That is indeed true, but it's also just as true that some works that became top sellers, and even classics, with the writers eventually becoming very famous, were at first rejected by many many publishing houses. I suppose Harry Potter is the most recent example. It perhaps only goes to prove that it's all based on a commissioning editor's opinion, the first fingers of that gauntlet, and they are not all the same. A persistent agent is also a great advantage, but getting one to take you on is also part of that gauntlet. I am not too sure why the fact that some classics were initially rejected is particularly relevant. They still had to eventually go through the entire vetting process that goes toward ensuring a book's quality.
You are right about agents. A lot of people think that you just go out and hire one. But you have to submit your work in exactly the same way you would to a publisher. And since an agent or agency is typically much smaller than a publishing house, they can take on only a limited number of authors, meaning that they have to be exceedingly selective. So while having an agent can be a very good thing, it can also be very difficult and time-consuming to find one."but when you buy a self-published book you have no idea whether or not the author went to the trouble of enlisting professional help or just threw his book out there into the market, willy nilly. And unless a cover makes it patently obvious that the book is incompetent, there aren't too many ways for a potential purchaser to be forewarned." But there is. The Preview. Reviews, Star ratings, etc etc etc. You, like myself, have at least looked at Previews and thought, and even said, my god! this is all rubbish! (And I don't just mean the subject ) Indeed. But by the same token, I give a lot more credence to professional reviews than to customer reviews on Amazon...especially since I am all too aware of how low some people's standards are. And I am always leery of equating popularity with quality. After all, millions of people love McDonald's.
By the bye, it is probably just a personal prejudice, but I won't even bother to look at the preview of a book if the cover is godawful. "So I think what is sort of going on with Amazon and Spark is that they are finding themselves having to take on some the roles that traditionally belonged to the book publisher." Their back catalogues must be gigantic. Imagine having to go through it all. One has to hope they simply don't delete all the SPed stuff published prior to April. Let's also hope they don't base it on sales. I don't use Spark, but Lulu do use Ingram's ISBNs, will they also be vetting everything with an Ingram ISBN on it? That would be a terrible thing for all the people who have put so much work into their books!Incidentally, I wonder if Amazon will also be going through all the products for sale on it (and what about Prime TV/video service?) because some is rubbish sold by dubious places in China! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2020 21:02:51 GMT
I missed these friendly exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 4, 2020 1:24:14 GMT
"Yup. The whole point of a blurb or description is to entice a potential reader to buy the book...it really says nothing toward the book's quality." But at the very least, a Preview should, as long as it is generated from pages of the book, like most are. True enough. "In traditional publishing, a book has to run a gauntlet of editors, designers, marketers, etc. before it reaches bookshelves. There are no such built-in filters for self-published books. If you buy a book from, say Macmillian, you know that it has been carefully vetted..." That is indeed true, but it's also just as true that some works that became top sellers, and even classics, with the writers eventually becoming very famous, were at first rejected by many many publishing houses. I suppose Harry Potter is the most recent example. It perhaps only goes to prove that it's all based on a commissioning editor's opinion, the first fingers of that gauntlet, and they are not all the same. A persistent agent is also a great advantage, but getting one to take you on is also part of that gauntlet. I am not too sure why the fact that some classics were initially rejected is particularly relevant. They still had to eventually go through the entire vetting process that goes toward ensuring a book's quality. It's relevant because it must prove that whether a book is 'worthy' enough to even consider taking on to publish, can be just a matter of opinion. Amazon and Spark seem to be making that opinion with SPed Works and future ones too.You are right about agents. A lot of people think that you just go out and hire one. But you have to submit your work in exactly the same way you would to a publisher. And since an agent or agency is typically much smaller than a publishing house, they can take on only a limited number of authors, meaning that they have to be exceedingly selective. So while having an agent can be a very good thing, it can also be very difficult and time-consuming to find one. "but when you buy a self-published book you have no idea whether or not the author went to the trouble of enlisting professional help or just threw his book out there into the market, willy nilly. And unless a cover makes it patently obvious that the book is incompetent, there aren't too many ways for a potential purchaser to be forewarned." But there is. The Preview. Reviews, Star ratings, etc etc etc. You, like myself, have at least looked at Previews and thought, and even said, my god! this is all rubbish! (And I don't just mean the subject ) Indeed. But by the same token, I give a lot more credence to professional reviews than to customer reviews on Amazon...especially since I am all too aware of how low some people's standards are. And I am always leery of equating popularity with quality. After all, millions of people love McDonald's. Quite so, but very often Pro reviewers can be paid to be 'nice' also. Periodicals, for example, often risk future advertising revenue by giving bad, but honest reviews. There's also the newspapers and magazine publishing groups who also publish books. They have the advantage of being able to advertise those books in their weeklies or whatever. They are not going to give the book/s a bad review. When I owned magazines I insisted on honest reviews, needless to say it resulted in a lot of lost advertising revenue, where most of the profit lies unfortunately  On the other foot, for example, one can gain a remarkably good review when one lends a new vehicle to a motoring reviewer for a week, and take them out for a nice meal as I discovered when designing motorhomes ... By the bye, it is probably just a personal prejudice, but I won't even bother to look at the preview of a book if the cover is godawful. Well, take a look at the original covers of some classics. Not always wonderful. You know that saying about never judge ..."So I think what is sort of going on with Amazon and Spark is that they are finding themselves having to take on some the roles that traditionally belonged to the book publisher." Their back catalogues must be gigantic. Imagine having to go through it all. One has to hope they simply don't delete all the SPed stuff published prior to April. Let's also hope they don't base it on sales. I don't use Spark, but Lulu do use Ingram's ISBNs, will they also be vetting everything with an Ingram ISBN on it? That would be a terrible thing for all the people who have put so much work into their books!
Indeed it would, and I do believe the software exists that allows them to scan the PDFs etc of 100s of books a day for the 'problems' they are looking for.Incidentally, I wonder if Amazon will also be going through all the products for sale on it (and what about Prime TV/video service?) because some is rubbish sold by dubious places in China! |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 4, 2020 1:24:44 GMT
Gosh, where's all that extra spacing from?!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 4, 2020 13:08:11 GMT
I am not too sure why the fact that some classics were initially rejected is particularly relevant. They still had to eventually go through the entire vetting process that goes toward ensuring a book's quality. It's relevant because it must prove that whether a book is 'worthy' enough to even consider taking on to publish, can be just a matter of opinion. Amazon and Spark seem to be making that opinion with SPed Works and future ones too.
Not necessarily. There are a great many reasons for rejecting a book that have little or nothing to do with the book's quality. To take just a very few examples: It may not be in the publisher's line. The publisher may have already published a book it feels is too similar in some way. There may already be one or more similar books already on the market. The publisher may not be publishing any additional new titles for the year. And, of course, the acquisitions editor just might not like it. Last year I was working with an editor at a publisher in the UK. She was very enthusiastic about a project and we worked for several months getting the proposal in shape...but at the last moment the publishing house itself decided to take an entirely different direction, focusing on topics that, unfortunately, did not include my book. The quality of the project didn't change: the publisher was just no longer going to publish books in its subject.
Anyway, all that being said, once a book is published by a traditional publisher the potential reader knows that it carries the cachet of having been carefully produced. "Macmillan," "Simon & Schuster," "HarperCollins" are all brands just as is Chevrolet or Kellogg. There is the assumption of quality. It's the difference between buying a sausage from your local market and one that a stranger brings to your door, wrapped in an old newspaper.By the bye, it is probably just a personal prejudice, but I won't even bother to look at the preview of a book if the cover is godawful. Well, take a look at the original covers of some classics. Not always wonderful. You know that saying about never judge ...
One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly (and while there have been unattractive covers on classics I can't think of one that was amateurish). Since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a book cover is packaging, a lot of work goes into giving a book the best cover possible. Sometimes there are missteps, but I think there is a palpable difference between an ineffective cover from a traditional publisher and the sort of thing one sees on LousyBookCovers.com |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 4, 2020 17:40:18 GMT
I am not too sure why the fact that some classics were initially rejected is particularly relevant. They still had to eventually go through the entire vetting process that goes toward ensuring a book's quality. It's relevant because it must prove that whether a book is 'worthy' enough to even consider taking on to publish, can be just a matter of opinion. Amazon and Spark seem to be making that opinion with SPed Works and future ones too. Not necessarily. There are a great many reasons for rejecting a book that have little or nothing to do with the book's quality. To take just a very few examples: It may not be in the publisher's line. The publisher may have already published a book it feels is too similar in some way. There may already be one or more similar books already on the market. The publisher may not be publishing any additional new titles for the year. And, of course, the acquisitions editor just might not like it. Last year I was working with an editor at a publisher in the UK. She was very enthusiastic about a project and we worked for several months getting the proposal in shape...but at the last moment the publishing house itself decided to take an entirely different direction, focusing on topics that, unfortunately, did not include my book. The quality of the project didn't change: the publisher was just no longer going to publish books in its subject. A lot of that more or less sums up Spark's and Amazon's new rules, and it's still just the matter of opinion of the person/people who is considering them.Anyway, all that being said, once a book is published by a traditional publisher the potential reader knows that it carries the cachet of having been carefully produced. "Macmillan," "Simon & Schuster," "HarperCollins" are all brands just as is Chevrolet or Kellogg. There is the assumption of quality. It's the difference between buying a sausage from your local market and one that a stranger brings to your door, wrapped in an old newspaper. That is true, but that still does not always make it a good story. Is one of Spark's new rules that it should be 'enjoyable?' Does that not depend on who is reading it? As to using cars as an example. Remember the reason for the USA's 'Lemon Law'? What about all the recalls of many car brands? Mine has had three so far, to stop them bursting in to flames! How about The various Whirlpool white goods subsidiaries, a few million tumble-dryers and washing machines in danger of setting on fire, some of which burnt down houses before the recalls. Famous Brands do not always mean as one would hope.By the bye, it is probably just a personal prejudice, but I won't even bother to look at the preview of a book if the cover is godawful. That too is a matter of opinion. Some covers you like I think are awful Well, take a look at the original covers of some classics. Not always wonderful. You know that saying about never judge ... One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly More in fact. For a start they did not have the printing technology we have today.
(and while there have been unattractive covers on classics I can't think of one that was amateurish). A matter of opinion.Since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a book cover is packaging, a lot of work goes into giving a book the best cover possible. Sometimes there are missteps, but I think there is a palpable difference between an ineffective cover from a traditional publisher and the sort of thing one sees on LousyBookCovers.com Also a matter of opinion. Here's many variations of a book's cover. www.bing.com/images/search?q=lady%20chatterley's%20lover%20original%20book%20cover&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=lady%20chatterley's%20lover%20original%20book%20cover&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=A742AD13087445DE9602CB6162C55D30 Which is good and which is bad? But who's eventual massive sales were due to a much media covered court case that banned it. But having said that, a book has a cover (even an e-book of sorts) so there's no reason something worthy should not go on it. Still, having said that. When there was only bookshops, one use to witness people taking a book down, perhaps attracted by the cover, reading the blurb, then perhaps reading a page or two, then putting it back, because they did not like the story no doubt. Good covers do not always develop in to good sales. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 4, 2020 20:23:53 GMT
I am not too sure why the fact that some classics were initially rejected is particularly relevant. They still had to eventually go through the entire vetting process that goes toward ensuring a book's quality. It's relevant because it must prove that whether a book is 'worthy' enough to even consider taking on to publish, can be just a matter of opinion. Amazon and Spark seem to be making that opinion with SPed Works and future ones too. Not necessarily. There are a great many reasons for rejecting a book that have little or nothing to do with the book's quality. To take just a very few examples: It may not be in the publisher's line. The publisher may have already published a book it feels is too similar in some way. There may already be one or more similar books already on the market. The publisher may not be publishing any additional new titles for the year. And, of course, the acquisitions editor just might not like it. Last year I was working with an editor at a publisher in the UK. She was very enthusiastic about a project and we worked for several months getting the proposal in shape...but at the last moment the publishing house itself decided to take an entirely different direction, focusing on topics that, unfortunately, did not include my book. The quality of the project didn't change: the publisher was just no longer going to publish books in its subject. A lot of that more or less sums up Spark's and Amazon's new rules, and it's still just the matter of opinion of the person/people who is considering them.
The reasons I listed only parallel Spark's and Amazon's rules. If, for instance, a publisher already has a similar book in their catalog it makes perfect sense for them to not want to publish another one--after all, unlike Amazon, they may be publishing only a few dozen books a year. Why would they publish one that would be competition with a book they already have on their list? And only the last possibility I mentioned---an editor just not liking a book---involves a personal opinion. If a publisher rejects your urban lesbian vampire erotica because they publish only Christian children's books, that is not an opinion. It is because you didn't do your homework and submitted an inappropriate book.
There is also matter of scale to take into consideration, too. A traditional publisher may issue only a relatively small number of books every year with its competition releasing a similarly limited number. This calls for great care in selecting books and great awareness of what is already on the market. Amazon, with tens of thousands of new books on its lists, and virtually no monetary investment in the ebooks, simply hasn't this sort of issue to deal with.Anyway, all that being said, once a book is published by a traditional publisher the potential reader knows that it carries the cachet of having been carefully produced. "Macmillan," "Simon & Schuster," "HarperCollins" are all brands just as is Chevrolet or Kellogg. There is the assumption of quality. It's the difference between buying a sausage from your local market and one that a stranger brings to your door, wrapped in an old newspaper. That is true, but that still does not always make it a good story. Is one of Spark's new rules that it should be 'enjoyable?' Does that not depend on who is reading it? As to using cars as an example. Remember the reason for the USA's 'Lemon Law'? What about all the recalls of many car brands? Mine has had three so far, to stop them bursting in to flames! How about The various Whirlpool white goods subsidiaries, a few million tumble-dryers and washing machines in danger of setting on fire, some of which burnt down houses before the recalls. Famous Brands do not always mean as one would hope.
I absolutely agree about the subjectivity of the "enjoyable" rule. Goodness knows there are enough best-selling books (let alone classics) that I found unreadable.
I agree with you about depending too much on brands, but I think you may be making too much of my analogy, which was that, on the whole, one is more likely to trust a brand name---especially one with a good reputation---than a product from a company (or in the case of a self-published book, an individual) completely unknown to you. By the bye, it is probably just a personal prejudice, but I won't even bother to look at the preview of a book if the cover is godawful. That too is a matter of opinion. Some covers you like I think are awful
I was thinking (as I mentioned) specifically of covers that would be easy candidates for LousyBookCovers.comWell, take a look at the original covers of some classics. Not always wonderful. You know that saying about never judge ... One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly More in fact. For a start they did not have the printing technology we have today.That doesn't effect the design of a cover. (and while there have been unattractive covers on classics I can't think of one that was amateurish). A matter of opinion.
Show me.
(and I am talking about their original covers or reprints from traditional publishers, not books that have fallen into the public domain)Since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a book cover is packaging, a lot of work goes into giving a book the best cover possible. Sometimes there are missteps, but I think there is a palpable difference between an ineffective cover from a traditional publisher and the sort of thing one sees on LousyBookCovers.com Also a matter of opinion. Here's many variations of a book's cover.The point of this more or less eludes me. First of all, whatever the point is, it is an isolated example. Second, it is a book that was originally published nearly 90 years ago and has subsequently gone through countless editions through the course of many decades in many different countries, through many different decades of design sensibilities, many differing markets and now suffering the trials and tribulations of being in the public domain for many years. It is also a book that is by now so well known that it is almost irrelevant what goes on the cover. www.bing.com/images/search?q=lady%20chatterley's%20lover%20original%20book%20cover&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=lady%20chatterley's%20lover%20original%20book%20cover&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=A742AD13087445DE9602CB6162C55D30 Which is good and which is bad? But who's eventual massive sales were due to a much media covered court case that banned it. But having said that, a book has a cover (even an e-book of sorts) so there's no reason something worthy should not go on it. Still, having said that. When there was only bookshops, one use to witness people taking a book down, perhaps attracted by the cover, reading the blurb, then perhaps reading a page or two, then putting it back, because they did not like the story no doubt. Good covers do not always develop in to good sales.And I have never said they did. What they do is exactly what you described: they get someone to stop, pick up a book and look at it. If no one does even that, there is no chance of them buying it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 4, 2020 21:08:37 GMT
Just a note.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as an informed opinion. For instance, I would hope that you would consider your doctor's opinion about your blood test before you would consider that of your auto mechanic's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Mar 4, 2020 22:49:33 GMT
Just a note. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as an informed opinion. For instance, I would hope that you would consider your doctor's opinion about your blood test before you would consider that of your auto mechanic's. Touche, and well said. |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 5, 2020 20:53:03 GMT
"completely unknown to you" Almost everything starts of as such, until they do become well known. |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 5, 2020 21:16:21 GMT
One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly More in fact. For a start they did not have the printing technology we have today. That doesn't effect the design of a cover. It certainly effects the tools and print technology available to the designer, and the cost of it. Many early books simply had hand goldblocked titles on them. Look at covers today. Even stock ones. (and while there have been unattractive covers on classics I can't think of one that was amateurish). A matter of opinion. Show me. A bit pointless, when it is a matter of opinion. But define amateurish. (and I am talking about their original covers or reprints from traditional publishers, not books that have fallen into the public domain) Ditto.Since, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a book cover is packaging, a lot of work goes into giving a book the best cover possible. Sometimes there are missteps, but I think there is a palpable difference between an ineffective cover from a traditional publisher and the sort of thing one sees on LousyBookCovers.com Also a matter of opinion. Here's many variations of a book's cover. The point of this more or less eludes me. You worry me when you keep saying that. First of all, whatever the point is, it is an isolated example. Not really it is not. 50 Shades is another example of mass sales having nothing to do with the cover, but the media hype around it. But if you can't see that then ... Second, it is a book that was originally published nearly 90 years ago First published privately in Italy and France, which I assume means Self-Published. Then it was published in the UK in the 1960s, unedited, and a ban was attempted here, which did not stick, and sales shot to well over 2 mill almost in the same week of the court case. (If you read it now, the actual objection to it in reality was that a high-glass lady had a bit of rough on the side. The mixing of classes! Shock horror!) and has subsequently gone through countless editions through the course of many decades in many different countries, through many different decades of design sensibilities, Indeed, but this was the first cover >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover#/media/File:Lady_Chatterleys_Lover.jpg I have no idea what it's to do with the story.many differing markets and now suffering the trials and tribulations of being in the public domain for many years. It is also a book that is by now so well known that it is almost irrelevant what goes on the cover.
And how many books can you now say that latter comment about?
Golly, I like the easy way to make colours here |
|
|
|
Post by And still Kevin 2024 on Mar 5, 2020 21:24:40 GMT
"Just a note.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as an informed opinion. For instance, I would hope that you would consider your doctor's opinion about your blood test before you would consider that of your auto mechanic's."
I don't get your point. It was you who side-referenced cars as being able to trust well-known brands, and I said you cannot, which is not only my opinion. I can think of another trusted brand in the UK that one year it was discovered that the beef in their products was 20% horse meat. (it's not actually illegal to sell horse meat here, but it has to be labelled as such.) Oh, and shall I point out that many deaths are caused by medical negligence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2020 10:16:42 GMT
Golly, I like the easy way to make colours here
It's great Kevin, so much easier than Lulu
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Mar 6, 2020 13:20:54 GMT
One can always ferret out the odd example, but that would be an anomaly More in fact. For a start they did not have the printing technology we have today. That doesn't effect the design of a cover. It certainly effects the tools and print technology available to the designer, and the cost of it. Many early books simply had hand goldblocked titles on them. Look at covers today. Even stock ones.
Here are a couple of examples of the covers Jules Verne's publisher typically put on his books in the middle of the 19th century...   The real turning point in book cover design was the introduction of the dust jacket, the use of which didn't really become widespread until the latter half of the 19th century. This freed publishers from having to stamp and emboss art directly onto the cover boards of a book, giving them much more freedom in the use of art and printing techniques (and it was also less expensive). What you might want to do is a little background research into the evolution of book cover designing. This is a good start www.grapheine.com/en/history-of-graphic-design/history-of-book-covers-1One of the driving forces in making book covers more attractive was the increased availability of books to the general public, meaning that point of purchase became gradually more important. This didn't really occur on a large scale until the 19th century. |
|
)
On the other foot, for example, one can gain a remarkably good review when one lends a new vehicle to a motoring reviewer for a week, and take them out for a nice meal as I discovered when designing motorhomes ... 
