I’ve been reading about the contract negotiations between Amazon and publishers lately. Although the details are shrouded in mystery because of non-disclosure agreements, both sides have opined publicly about the other.
For some reason authors are choosing sides. Frankly, I don’t know why, because it’s not an Indie Published vs. Traditional Published debate, but it’s going strong in a variety of places. You can’t visit a blog nowadays without being assaulted by one side or the other.
There are plenty of invectives to go around. Traditionally published authors have their heads in the sand. They’re chained to publishers like slaves and don’t have a clue what’s going on. They’re feeling privileged and they think Indie published writers are the scum of the earth. Self-published authors are delusional creators of a tsunami of swill, clogging up readers’ minds with un-edited garbage.
Um, none of that is true, but you couldn’t tell it from the insults being hurled.
One of the points always mentioned is this: readers don’t care who publishes what. All they care about is the author. The only exception to this idea is Harlequin. Evidently, Harlequin has marketed itself well enough that a reader will ask for a Harlequin book first and care about the author second. I don’t know if that’s true. Since I’ve heard about the “Avonization” of authors for a few years, I wonder if Avon has done that as well. Do readers look for an Avon book and then the author?
Are the arguing authors right?
Do you ignore who publishes a book? Do you notice self-published books? If you had $7.99 to spend on a book – and didn’t know the author – would you buy one traditionally published book or two indie books? Do you agree with the Harlequin theory?