Wednesday, May 25, 2011

An Un-named Review—I Rant

The rule is, "Never say anything bad about another author," so I won't identify this author or the book. I've read several of her novels, each of which was weak in one area: PLOT. But layers of premise in this novel were so bad I didn't finish the book. (And I'm really cheap. If I spend a buck for a book I'm going to finish it…almost always.)

So my gripe is with reviewers and . . . the system.

Novel X got three stars in Amazon. (I suggest the reviewers were easy on her because of her track record.) Glanced through her other novels: ratings ranged from 2.5 to 4.5 stars. All over the place.

So my contention is: publishers are willing to distribute anything from their cash cows. But where is the quality control? I whine here…because I've got 18 manuscripts and can't catch an agent's eye.

If the agent-publisher hurdle in traditional publishing is to ensure what goes to the presses is the best out there . . . then no wonder the self-e-publishing market is taking off.
Traditional publishing grants an author bona fides.

But publishers weaken the credentials by not being as tough on published authors as they are on aspiring authors.

Regards,
Mac
http://home.roadrunner.com/~macwheeler/


3 comments:

  1. You make it sound like they should know what they're doing.

    mood
    @mooderino

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah.

    I'm waiting for a "real" author to comment about how naive I am.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've read books that should never have been published, either that or had no editing whatsoever. You're right, it's the cash cow. Publishers need to make money because so many people are now self-pubbing. And it's looking better and better to me.

    ReplyDelete