Writing Readers discussion

I was at my weekly writer's group meeting this morning and they were talking about how the publishing industry is changing. Publishers are looking for shorter books now, with more action, and well written. They are competing with e-books, which are so much cheaper.

But the problem with e-books, is that so many writers are self-publishing on Amazon.com (Kindle and other on-line places), and it's so hard to seperate the bad from the good.

I still think there is going to be a market for the more popular writers who go through traditional publishing, because readers recognize the quality of the writing they get. Traditional published authors have the buffer of an editor to help them get their material highly polished and they can help with book signings. (sometimes, not always.)

What do any of you think about this?

I have been following the shifts in publishing and reading practices (as best as I can) with great interest. Mike Shatzkin has been blogging at www.idealog.com/blog on this topic, and he seems to know his stuff. I am excited by the prospect of ebooks leading to a renaissance for the novella. (Side note: I recently picked up the complete novels of Dashiell Hammett and was surprised to find that each of them is under 150 pages.)

Sites like goodreads, shelfari, librarything, etc. are also changing the way people discover books. The role of booksellers in promoting titles is shifting to bloggers, social media, and amazon reviewers. I am still iffy about most self-pubbed content, but the one book I read (through a personal contact on shelfari) was good, and I will probably read Geoffrey Fox's novel one of these days.

One observation about the people who are making a living at self-publishing: They all have backlist. J.A. Konrath, Amanda Hocking, John Locke --- they don't have just one or two titles. Some of them are quite prolific. Tho' I haven't read them, I would guess that plot is winning out over craft in their writing style (which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my book, though I prefer to have both going on).

Note: When I feel like my current WIP is polished enough, I will make a good faith effort to sell it along the traditional route. My reasoning is that, for where I'm at in my writing career, I would benefit a lot from the experience of professional editors, and having an agent will give me a better shot at foreign and/or film rights.

That's true. I think to try and get traditionally published first shows that you are willing to work at your craft and hone and polish it, rather than rush to publish. Too often their craft suffers when people rush to self-publish. I've seen some pretty awful writing over the years. With traditional publishing at least you have to meet certain standards before it is acceptable.

I feel pretty much the way you do, Aric, and I too am following Mike Shatzkin's blog. The whole publishing context is changing quickly. Thanks for mentioning my book. If you do get to read it, I'll be interested to know your reactions.

Aric wrote: "I have been following the shifts in publishing and reading practices (as best as I can) with great interest. Mike Shatzkin has been blogging at www.idealog.com/blog on this topic, and he seems to k..."