OMFG a self-driven train wreck....

[lagilman]

Things you never ever ever do. Ever.

http://booksandpals.blogspot.com/2011/03/greek-seaman-jacqueline-howett.html

(read the comments, specifically the author's)



[and yes, this is the sort of thing that gives self-publishing a bad odor. Both the 'tude, and the content. If you think you're brilliant/flawless, you probably aren't. Not unless someone Not Your Mother has deemed you so]

Comments

[firynze.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

I support self-publishing, done right. I mean, yeah, I run a small press, but I also freelance doing book design and I think indie authors are awesome. IF they behave like professionals, and actually put the time, effort, and cash into presenting their work professionally (kids, you need an editor and a designer. You DO. Shut up and put up the cash, because unless your friends are actually professional editors and designers, they don't count. Trust me. We can tell.)

ALL authors need to behave professionally, it's true, but it seems that the DIYs are most inclined to going nuts like this, perhaps because they're so invested in every stage of producing and marketing their books.

This situation just has me rubbing my temples and sighing deeply.

[lagilman]

perhaps because they're so invested in every stage of producing and marketing their books.



Or maybe -- having bypassed the gatekeepers, they just can't bear to hear that maybe they should have stopped and gotten gate-checked? Because being told "this isn't good enough" a few (dozen) times teaches you to accept crits gracefully - in public, at least.

And you just DON'T flame back at the reviewer, or tell someone to fuck off. No. Just OMFG no.

[barbhendee.livejournal.com]

Oh my God! I've seen a few train wrecks along these lines . . . but nothing quite this bad.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

I think it's a little of both.

They're very, very invested in their book - often on a financial level that traditionally published authors aren't, if they DID shell out for editing, design, etc. - and they take any criticism personally. And I suspect that those who didn't necessarily choose to self-publish (ie, they're doing it because the trads rejected them, not because they decided to experiment with a new venue/methodology) are reacting precisely as you suggest - how DARE you imply that I really did need a gatekeeper?!

[lagilman]

err... as someone whose living is 95% tied up in her books, I'd say that there is no greater financial level than that, unless they've mortgaged their house to publish their book (and if they did, that's not an investment, that's a folly).

As a former gatekeeper... yeah. There are a lot of people out there who want to write in the worst way... and do.

[ceosanna.livejournal.com]

Is it bad that Murv's (M.R. Sellars) comment made me snicker? For some reason, I'm imagining his publicist saying "I kill you" ala Jeff Dunham/Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

[firynze.livejournal.com]

The DIY authors would argue that they're more tied up because they shelled out up front for services, while you're essentially paying on the back end (royalties vs. paying your editors out of pocket).

Personally, I don't necessarily buy that argument, since trad-published authors are far more likely to be living off their writing income, and therefore more integrally tied to their book, rather than doing it as a sideline, but that's neither here nor there, when it comes to perception.

As a current gatekeeper, I hear ya. I've gotten some really amazing submissions, a shockingly high percentage, actually, but then I've gotten these stunning, stunning horror shows...

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

Not Your Mother

Or S.O. Just sayin'....

[spiziks.livejournal.com]

I can't . . . can't look . . . away . . .

[eclectic-writer.livejournal.com]

Holy s#!t no kidding about train wreck. It's painful to read, mostly because nobody should be this stupid. I'm torn between pity for the author and disgust because, really, she must be delusional.

And I'm only halfway through the comments.

[lagilman]

Developing your balance in the face of bad reviews does not come easily. But it's essential. Even bestsellers who take issue with negative reviews can't win. We learn quickly to vent and sulk in private (or among sympathetic friends).

As I said above, there is a tendency among those who bypassed the traditional gatekeeping to think that they don't need any keeping at all.

They are wrong.

Self-publishing does not mean unedited, and 'edited' should not mean 'my friend/critique group read it and told me it was really good."

And sometimes? Stuff just sucks, and should not be published. That goes for all of us, at every stage of the game.

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

Woooooow.

[eclectic-writer.livejournal.com]

All good points, none of which I'll bet she was told by others in the industry since she went around the back way. In the time between when I started reading the post and when I replied there were nearly 15 new posts, which means the story went viral, which means disaster for the author's professional career. Honestly though, based on the excerpts the reviewer (who was professional about it all) posted of her story I'd bet it falls under the "stuff just sucks" category.

It's just sad in so many ways. A number of commenters are going off how Indie and Self-Published authors are like this, which means the vitriol is spreading to those who have done nothing to deserve it other than go through non-traditional channels.

[lagilman]

I don't think this author has a professional career to ruin - that's sort of the point.

And the only way self-published authors ("indie" isn't really accurate usage) are going to improve their image is by putting out material that is quality-competitive with commercial/press-published work.


[I also don't understand why anyone seriously about writing (rather than "being an author") would WANT to but something un-edited out there. But then, that may be the marking point: ah honest writer is never satisfied with their work, because they know they can learn more, do better. And sometimes that needs your editor kicking your ass to accomplish.]

[wookiemonster.livejournal.com]

Oh.
Mygods.

Though, this boosts my own ego about my own writing and possibilities of getting published. More importantly, I know I'm better at taking criticism than that!

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

*horrified* Good grief, that's...

I am embarrassed for her not realizing what a twit she's being. *facepalm*

[chickwriter.livejournal.com]

there is a tendency among those who bypassed the traditional gatekeeping to think that they don't need any keeping at all

Yeah, pretty much boils down to this statement plus:
And sometimes? Stuff just sucks, and should not be published. That goes for all of us, at every stage of the game. < -- this, too.

[spiziks.livejournal.com]

Of course, she can always just write under a pen name. Don't know if that'll occur to her, though.

[dancinghorse.livejournal.com]

Her style, or lack thereof, is distinctive enough that she'll get outed. Or will out herself when she gets another bad review.

I agree that "willingness to take editing" is a fairly decent indicator of an honest harlot, er, writer. Though the likes of [Big Honking Name Redacted] and [Monster Bestseller Redacted] would demonstrate otherwise.

[isabeau.livejournal.com]

...I just ... whaaaaaat?

Although I kind of love this, in a twisted wtffff sort of way:

[snippet from book:] "Don and Katy watched hypnotically Gino place more coffees out at another table with supreme balance."

[author] "... what I read above has no flaws. My writing is fine."

Yeahhhh.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's amazing, isn't it? It's even better than Anne Rice's "I never need editing" meltdown, and that was some primo batshit.

[mysocalledhell.livejournal.com]

*blinkblink* I think my brain may have imploded. I'm not exactly sure where in any field that behavior like that would be even remotely acceptable. Especially not one where your internet presence accounts for 99% of how people see you and what they're going to think of you.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Like i said on Twitter to someone else- What is she, 12???

I will most likely never read one of her books simply because of this infantile display of bad grace.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

I first heard about it on Twitter over 2 hours ago. Yes, it's definately viral.

[lagilman]

Some of the comments were pretty good - and most seemed to be taking the Day's Lesson to heart, rather than doing a mass pile-on, as some accused.

But after a certain point, "holy shit" or "wow" is all you can really say, without poking a corpse.

[lagilman]

or anyone who doesn't want to hurt you. Sometimes, we need to get hurt.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I could not keep reading. It's just so sad. (At a distance. Meltdowns like this in public I tend to shake my head and walk the other way.)

Too bad no one warned her about these things -- or that she did not listen when they tried to warn her.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's impressive. I...have no words.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

She makes me embarrassed to be a British writer. So not the proper way to behave.

[corvidophile.livejournal.com]

it was astounding that someone 50+ years would explode like that. and so sad to see the impact she makes, and the reputation she's spoiling, for so many self-published authors.

i don't take criticism very well myself, but if i was in an industry where taking that criticism in such a public forum meant me selling my product or losing all of my clients in one fell viral swoop? i'd learn to shut my mouth pretty damn quick.

being human, i found it amusing all the furor she incited, but also sad that she just destroyed any chance of making it as an author when all she had to do was swallow some advice and get someone to edit her work.