columns
by Sarah Noffke (TopShelf Columnist)
The other day I read an article that
went viral by a traditionally published
author. Her main point was that in
publishing we need gatekeepers on all
published books. The whole article kind
of felt like communism, if I’m going to
be completely honest. This author was
obviously trying to stir the indie pot,
and it worked based on the billion
comments she received. Her main point
was that without strict controls––I’m
going to relabel that “a totalitarian
system of government”––the quality of
books goes down. My first thought was,
“Yes, I’d like an authoritarian publisher
to dictate what I get to read. Bravo.
Now, please assign me a job and
housing.” Before you start to think that
I’m adamantly against communism,
please understand I’m only trying to
make a point about publishing. I think
as readers, we should have the choice
on what we read. Let the market
dictate what sells.
Is there anything wrong with
traditionally published books? No more
than what I see with indie published
books. In all fairness, I spot so many
errors in traditionally published books,
that seriously should be embarrassing.
But I’m not over here telling the big
publishers how to do their job, but if
they’d like me to, I have a few tips.
Here’s what I am saying: publishing
doesn’t need exclusive gatekeepers.
From my perspective, the big publishers
www.TopShelfMagazine.net
quick as I’d like. Traditional
publishing is slower than indie
because there are so many stairs in
those darn publishing houses. It is
my understanding that a traditional
publisher isn’t going to allow me to
publish six books in one year like I
did in 2016. There are rules for
these publishers, and I kind of like
doing things my way. I don’t answer
well to authority, and that’s perfectly
fine if we have choices--if the
dictates of the old system don’t
strike down the indie market.
Do some aspects of publishing
benefit from gatekeepers? Sure. But
do we also need indie options?
Unquestionably. And more than
anything, we need tolerance and
respect for each other. I love the big
Day. And why? Because I take the time
and resources to use professional
editors, content editors, cover designers,
etc. And I’d like to bring up a key point
here. I’m an indie author by choice. No,
I won’t turn down a ten million dollar
deal from a publisher if they approach
me (see contact information below), but
in general, I find the indie market suits
me better. One reason is the
gatekeepers. Because they carry that
large ax around, they tend not to be as publishers. They’ve published many of
my favorite books. But there seems to be
a divide between them and the indies.
And the only one that hurts is the
authors. So let the traditional publishers
continue as they have for so long. And
have respect for the indie books that go
their own route. At the end of the day,
the readers are the ones in charge. They
are the true gatekeepers.
DOES PUBLISHING
NEED GATEKEEPERS?
sell to market. They analyze what
readers want. They don’t flood the
market with a certain genre because
they think it will shoot them in the foot.
They do guard the publishing doors to
the press with their unending rejections
and meager approvals of authors and
books. And that’s fine. However, in
general, we can’t guard what books get
published. That was this author’s
proposal. She thought indie authors
were flooding the market with works
that were unedited, unprofessional, and
lacking in many ways. Are there bad
indie books? Absolutely. Does that mean
we need over-arching, strict controls on
publishing? No. Why? Because,
typically, bad books don’t sell.
I’m an indie autho r, and I’ll be
honest, my books sell. Every. Single.
THE INSIDE LOOK:
COLUMNS
More Articles at: TopShelfMagazine.net
TOPShelf magazine
APRIL2017 9