Is there a "good" self-published book?

[Stewart]

He'd have been about the same age as I am now.

I'll need to pull my finger out and get on with my writing....eureka!...more explosions...

 

[Shade]

Loved this from his biog:

"I actually disliked reading in my early high school years. I was given very dry old classics in Year 7, and I still believe that put a lot of my classmates off reading for a long time. It was only after I read To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Flies in Year 10 that I realised reading could transport you to another world. Once I figured that out, I went out and found all the action novels I could!"

Action novels! Er, yes. Well, it's the natural decision after loving Lord of the Flies and To Kill a Mockingbird, innit?

Something about the biog tells me Matto wrote it himself. Call it the quality of the writing: here's the word on his second novel, Temple:

Some doors are meant to remain closed, but this book is destined to be opened again and again.

[He] continues to play golf to relax (he plays off a handicap of 9), and plays in an indoor cricket team named the 'Full Tossers'.

Well quite.

Matthew continues to have fun both experimenting and testing his limits when it comes to word-smithing.

Lol! Yeah, gotta love that word-smithing!

Likes:

Big budget Hollywood blockbuster action movies. Die Hard, Speed, The Rock, and The Matrix are but a few of the films in Matthew's personal top ten.

Searching for Bobby Fischer, Star Wars, Schindler's List, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and - wait for it - the I Know What You Did Last Summer films are also part of that top-ten list.

Michael Crichton is Matthew's favourite author.

Jurassic Park is Matthew's favourite book.

Yeah, we knew that.

 

[Shade]

Click here to see some Matto fans getting all exercised about a wickle bad review of one of his books...

 

[Stewart]

Click here to see some Matto fans getting all exercised about a wickle bad review of one of his books...

I actually quite like the review and think all those assholes missed the point of it. While I've not read Reilly (and God forbid I ever should) I can infer from this review that he uses the same words over and over, writes terse sentences, uses cliches, and describes things as being of some sort.

This object appears to be a book of some sort.
A fat book. With letters printed in groups
that seem to be words of some sort. English
words. Words in groups that appear to be
sentences of some sort. Verbless sentences.
Mostly. There is a banal theme that seems to
be a plot of some sort. A bad plot. A recycled
plot. A plot about an idol of some sort. An
evil idol. An idol that bad men want to use to
destroy the world. There are several groups of
bad men of some sort. They all want the idol.
They all get the idol. They all die. The good
guy gets the idol. Then the bad guys get it.
They die. Then the good guy gets it Then the
bad guys get it. The good guy gets the girl in
the end. There is a happy ending of some sort.
For the survivors. Of course.

 

[fashionprincess]

MonkeyCatcher, are you enjoying "Angela's Ashes"? I recently purchased this book and plan on reading it shortly!!

 

[Ice]

I think you are somehow losing sight of the original point of this thread. He was about 18 years old when he wrote his first novel. He self published 1000 copies and was then picked up by a major publisher. This was a fantastic achievement.

Haven't got time to respond to the other parts now

 

[Shade]

I think you are somehow losing sight of the original point of this thread

True. Does a mod want to split the recent stuff off into a Matthew Reilly thread? (Or join it to an existing one?)

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

If this is true (which I don't think it is), then it's still the case that you would write better with reading.

This is true - you probably would. All I'm saying is that reading is not the /only/ way.

what does that say about him in your opinion? I suggest it says either he doesn't know good from bad, or doesn't care.

I also think it says this. I don't think that there is anything wrong in not caring weither the book is written poorly or not - I mean people like this have been a blessing for Dan Brown

I know that The Hobbit is a well-written book (a 'good' book) and that The Da Vinci Code is a badly-written book (a 'bad' book). Do you like them both equally? Do you think they're both equally good books? Do you think The Da Vinci Code is as likely still to be on your list in ten years' time as The Hobbit is?

I actually changed my top three list just before as I was updating my "currently reading" option, which was before I even read this post BTW. The Da Vinci Code is no longer on there, while The Hobbit still remains. I guess that answers your question - no I don't like them equally, I believe The Hobbit to be far superior in both my liking and in quality of writing. The Da Vinci Code is, in my opinion, poorly written but has an interesting storyline.

I would consider myself far better able to judge the worth of a book now than I was then

And I believe that I will be able to judge the worth of a book far better than I am able to now when I reach your age also. I understand that you are more experienced and better at judging the worth of a book than I am, and I was never trying to oppose that, well, fact. I would like to continue discussing this in 15 years when the Book Forum /will/ still be running

MonkeyCatcher, are you enjoying "Angela's Ashes"? I recently purchased this book and plan on reading it shortly!!

I finished it this morning and really enjoyed it! The lack of speech marks threw me off a bit at the start, but once you get used to it the book becomes very enjoyable. I hope you like it as much as I did

~MonkeyCatcher~

 

[namedujour]

Hey all! I just self-published my book because traditional publishing is near impossible to do. There are alot of politics involved and often the author has to "know somebody". I believe that the only downfall thus far in my experience with POD has been promotion. It's a challenge to get folks to know the book is out there.

Well, we got somewhat off-topic, so let me pull us all back.

You're right: Traditional publishing is usually reserved for previously published authors, people with an "inside" in the industry, or famous people with ghost writers. Probably less than 1% of new authors gets published. The rejected 99% aren't all "bad" - they aren't.

Self-publishing has created a new wedge for writers to get their feet in the door. If you can sell a self-published book, traditional publishers will look at it, and maybe even publish it. Marketing IS the big challenge here, but then marketing is a challenge for EVERY author - traditional publishers don't have big budgets anymore, and they yank the plug on books after a year or so to make room for other books. Some books only get published to puff-up the publisher's catalog! They're never promoted at all! Authors are really on their own, marketing-wise, no matter how they're published.

A motivated self-published author with a good product has an equal or better chance of making sales than a traditionally published author who sits back and expects book sales to miraculously happen. These are the self-published authors who find traditional publishers. When they do, they don't stop their marketing efforts - they know it's their job.

I know one particularly motivated author who never approached traditional publishers with her book. She went straight to self-publishing, then sent out a ton of emails and "sold" her book to online book clubs. Within about a year, she was selling over 400 copies a month on Amazon. She got a very good book deal from a major publisher this year.

I know another self-published author who was less motivated, but has sold over 3,000 copies of her book through Amazon. Her sales were mostly because of word-of-mouth referrals, and an intriguing storyline that created somewhat of a buzz. She signed a movie deal last year after getting three unsolicited offers from movie producers. She still hasn't found a traditional publisher. That doesn't mean her book is "bad".

I also know traditionally published authors who sit back and watch their books die because they don't do anything to promote them.

So, it's like anything else. You get back what you put into it. If the writing is good, and the editing is good, and the story is good, your book will sell with a little bit of effort. With no effort, it won't sell at all.

 

[sirmyk]

I also know traditionally published authors who sit back and watch their books die because they don't do anything to promote them.

This is true for both traditional and self-published books. A lot of work is mandatory to sell copies. Word-of-mouth is key. Sitting on your butt all day waiting for books to sell is a waste of time.

 

[Shade]

If the writing is good, and the editing is good, and the story is good, your book will sell with a little bit of effort.

Unfortunately, in some cases self-published books will also sell with a little bit of effort, even without good writing, editing or story. I think this is what makes self-publishing retain a stigma to many book buyers.

Example: any visitors to the site in my sig will know of Sean Wright, self-publishing virtuoso. (And no Sean, you can't quote me as saying "Sean Wright ... virtuoso.") He has published half a dozen children's books - though, for collectability reasons, he prefers to describe some of them as "teenage-adult crossover." The books are relentlessly awful: appalling prose, no characterisation, limited ideas, lazy dialogue - they really have to be seen to be believed. You can see extracts and reviews by going to the site in my sig and searching for Sean Wright.

Anyway. Despite this he has managed to sell, I would say, a few thousand copies of his various books, mostly at signing events and on eBay. All his books are signed to make them more 'collectable.' Indeed, when you investigate more closely, and ask people on eBay what they think of his books, you find that absolutely nobody is reading them - they just collect them because they think they're going to be valuable in future. Apart from the contemptible nature of this sort of book-collecting (rule one: collect what you love. Idiots), it gives succour to Wright to continue producing his terrible trex.

His creation of this notion that his unread, and unreadable, books are intrinsically valuable is added to by the misleading statements he regularly peddles on his website, like claiming that one of his books spent all of August 2003 at number one on Amazon above Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Most recently, he trumpets that two of his books have been nominated for the 'prestigious' Lancashire Children's Book of the Year 2006. Sure they have: and why? Because books are thus nominated by their publisher, ie him. People believe that this nonsense means something and shell out accordingly. Though they only have themselves to blame when they can't actually resell his stuff, as so often happens on eBay.

So, a potted history of the world's worst self-published author. The point being, I think, that although it's true that traditional publishing is no more guaranteed to produce brilliance than self-publishing is, at least there are safeguards in that 'proper' publishers won't take on anything that's as bottomlessly awful as Wright's stuff, and if they do, it'll be reviewed badly in the press and will be publicly known to be dreadful. That's why I and many others still view self-publishing only from the far end of a barge pole.

 

[Stewart]

He has published half a dozen children's books - though, for collectability reasons, he prefers to describe some of them as "teenage-adult crossover."

The "crossover" label doesn't really mean much to me. It appears that Sean Wright's idea of adult is throwing in a barrage of swear words, sex for the sake of sex, and pointless urges. His idea of children is throwing in a random sequence of unconnected events. This is where his two ideas cross over each other - I take it that's what he means?

 

[Shade]

You'll be referring to his masturpiece The Twisted Root of Jaarfindor, of which I believe you are now the 'proud' owner of a copy? Yes, his idea of making it 'edgy' and 'daring' and 'hip with ver kidz' is to include such immortal lines as

The thought of ending her days like her mother, on her back, wide-eyed on wine and heroin, with a wizard's white whiskers between her legs, was the most miserable image.

Well quite, but not in the way he intended, perhaps. Or

The sky-ships excited her. She suddenly had an urge to touch herself, but somehow resisted.

And

Islan scratched his balls like an absent-minded dog and sniffed his fingers, still gazing skyward.

Classy stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. As is this Reillian piece of narrative prose:

Princess Lia-Va was text book [sic] all right, and she really didn't give a flying ****.

You can read more here.

 

[Stewart]

I am indeed a proud owner of a signed copy of The Twisted Root of Jaarfindor and I can't wait to finish Perdido Street Station in order to enter Lia-Va's fantastic world. Interestingly, as an aside, have you ever noticed the similarities between the covers of both books?




While I've not started reading Sean Wright's Elydian masterpiece (no quoting that either, Sean, the saracsm won't come out Wright) I must admit to having flicked through its majestic pages and noticed a few choice phrases which I am dripping with excitement to discover their context. The most bollocks-explodingly anticpation goes to the following line, spoken by one of the characters: Shag me to life.

I notice from The Harrow's review that there's many mechanical errors with the book also, an example being:

When Lia-Va meets her new bodyguard on page 27, his name, "Islan," is immediately used in the text, even though he hasn't introduced himself yet. In fact, he doesn't speak or write a single word until page 73, and he doesn't introduce himself until page 76.

Yes, I can't wait to read this book. Damn, I've just wet myself...it's that good.

 

[Shade]

Yes, remarkable coincidence in the covers - don't worry though, Sean didn't copy China. He just bought the cover illustration for Jaarfindor off Les Edwards, who still displays it unJaarfindored on his website. Not that anyone else is going to want it now - it's dirty.

 

[Stewart]

Yes, remarkable coincidence in the covers - don't worry though, Sean didn't copy China. He just bought the cover illustration for Jaarfindor off Les Edwards, who still displays it unJaarfindored on his website. Not that anyone else is going to want it now - it's dirty.

Amazingly, the Perdido Street Station cover was done by Edward Miller which just happens to be the pseudonym of Les Edwards. This is beginning to make Les a bit of a lack-of-ideas man in much as Sean Wright is a can't-get-ideas-across man.

 

[Shade]

And yet further coincidence... on Sean Wright's FAQ page, he lists as one of the books he's read 'over the past year or two' as ... Perdido Street Station. So I guess he read that, liked it (well, it's down to his standard, innit?), and thought if he had almost the same cover for his next book, then it might be as 'good' as Perdido, or at least as popular. What a funny old, unbalanced world he lives in!

 

[Stewart]

Amazing! That FAQ is particularly strange - do you think he mistyped Rhys, Golding, and Woolf amongst the other dross?

I like his three favourite films, as written on the following FAQ, which are Total Recall, Bladerunner, The Running Man, Hook, and The Wizard of Oz.*

He then acknlowedges that five is the new three which, he says, "probably goes a long way to explaining why my books have been called hyper-active, energised, or action-packed." It does not, however, explain why they have also been called shit.

Sean then tells us one of the reasons for his books being so shit, using Philip Pullman's Firework Maker's Daughter as a "valid" comparison.

There is little descriptive scene setting in that book. You don't need much in short children's fiction.

Yes, children's fiction set in fantasy world - you hardly need to set the scene. Kids, obviously, don't need to know that the wizard is hiding in the big, spooky church that casts scary shadows over the village; tell them he's hiding in a church and they'll get the picture.

I can't go on reading his FAQ; there's so much bile being spewed forth that I'm feeling nauseous.


* Sean tells us that, one of the five of his three favourite films is The Wizard of Oz featuring Judy Garland. I presume that's to differntiate it between all the other The Wizard of Oz movies.

 

[sirmyk]

Maybe this thread should split off into a Sean Wright bash thread...

 

[namedujour]

So, a potted history of the world's worst self-published author. The point being, I think, that although it's true that traditional publishing is no more guaranteed to produce brilliance than self-publishing is, at least there are safeguards in that 'proper' publishers won't take on anything that's as bottomlessly awful as Wright's stuff, and if they do, it'll be reviewed badly in the press and will be publicly known to be dreadful. That's why I and many others still view self-publishing only from the far end of a barge pole.

You have a point - but not 100%. You can protect yourself from bilge writing by simply reading excerpts. If the book doesn't have one on Amazon, don't buy it. If it has one and it makes you cringe, don't buy it. If it has one and it seems like it was intelligently written, then also has good reviews (ones that don't all have the same writing style and the same descriptive adjectives) and other clear indications that it isn't some sad, misguided writer's sad mess, then buy it.

But the fact is, not all self-published books are awful. Many, many of them are, but I've steered away from them. Using a few intelligent guidelines, however, I've stumbled on some gems.

I defy you to read Jack Mauro's "Spite Hall," if you want one example of a really wonderful self-published book. You'll have to take my word for it because he never published an excerpt. But the writing style is (as I posted in a review I left for the book) very much like the wit of actor John Gielgud. It's humor for smart people. (That may be the sole reason he didn't find a publisher.)