Hey Noid, did you lock the gate.
I thought you did.
Well, now we've done it. How many authors got through?"
About two million.
About two million.
Well, now our work is cut out for us.
Hey, we're supposed to make them worry, not be worried our self.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Let's go attack a few reviewers. They have really thin skins.
Lead the way.
Back in the 16thC and earlier there wasn't really the same kind of incentive to credit authors. The playhouses were where big money was made, so some playwrights became minor celebs (although common consensus has it that if he'd lived Marlowe would be the guy we all have to study in school, and no-one would even know Shakespeare's name today). Stories existed in oral tradition as often as anything - this being a time when the majority were illiterate, after all - so there was no such thing as an "author" as we know it today. R&J's 'official' history has it that:
Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as [i]The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet[/i] by Arthur Brooke in 1562 and retold in prose in [i]Palace of Pleasure[/i] by William Painter in 1582.
Shakespeare borrowed heavily from stories he knew - as all playwrights did, they had to turn these things over at a remarkable speed, after all - and in turn his were borrowed right back: [i]The Tempest[/i] was completely reworked after the Restoration, for example. And even the First Folio wasn't accurate: the plays were living things that changed from performance to performance depending on how the crowd reacted and if the players remembered all their lines! The Folios were produced from memory years after Shakespeare died, and chances are what we know and study as 'Shakespeare' today is only an approximation of what he actually wrote.
I couldn't agree more. Any selection process or fee would simply put back the barriers we were all delighted to see come down.
The other thing that drives me crazy is the creative writing class dogma that writers are subjected to by some self-appointed critics. Who says 'show not tell'? Middlemarch is one of the greatest novels ever written and it's 50% tell. Who says you should stick to one point of view in a scene? If you do it well, I say jump in and out of your characters' heads as much as you like, it's your book. If you're talented it won't matter and if you're not, well nothing will help.
I do believe in editing for punctuation and spelling until it's a near perfect as you can get it, but beyond that, forget rules. Nothing new, original or interesting ever came out of following the rules!
I am not a bitchy person, and would never name somebody publicly, but unfortunately it's the like of Mr or Mrs X that are causing the real writers out there problems. I've tried hard to read their books, but they are the worst in every way- xxxx also has some of the worst reviews I have ever read...but, xxxx believes in their writing brilliance blindly, and even has the audacity to talk like she/he is the queen/king at the top of the pile...and there are loads at that level that don't see the problem.
A handful of writers here are so far ahead of these people, I'd liken it to someone with an English degree talking to a 10 year old for advice on how to construct a sentence...and that is what we are up against. That may sound arrogant, but, it is xxxx and the thousands like them that give the indi a bad name; if I were talking technical, I'd describe it as the drag factor that almost stops any good book in its tracks from reaching the level it truly deserves. Kindle is full of xxxx’s.
My point is this; independent publishing is just that, anybody can do it, even if they have a massive drag factor caused by their own lack of writing ability, and for every one that does publish, that awful drag factor affects us all...
Perhaps a gatekeeper is not such a bad idea...and perhaps it should be policed by a committee, whereby a copy is sent to 50 readers (not writers) who would vote...any book crossing the success threshold, set at 75%, would be published. The vote would be a simple yes or no...that would prevent any ambiguity caused by a non bipolar voting system...
I'b be happy to subject my books to such a test...and if I failed, I'd find out why my book didn't get through...and if possible, put it right and try again...
Hi bastaborn, I do understand your point but why should the fact that there are incompetant indie writers published on Kindle affect self-published writers any more than all the other writers whose publishers are putting them on Kindle?
Why would they read a bad book and assume mine will be bad because I'm an indie? They can 'Look Inside' and they can download a sample. And for that matter how do they know I'm an indie? My books are professionally edited and I pay for well designed covers.
There have always been bad books published and sold in bookstores. Readers don't buy them and they disappear. I'm sure the same will happen on Kindle.