Self-Publishers should not be called Real Authors

http://goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors

by michaelkoz • 12 years ago

3 8 12 years ago

pyalot2• 12 years ago

Elitist much?

So first you go on like:

  I think a line needs to be drawn in the sand so that we know who is the real deal.
  There is a stark contrast between being a writer and being a professional author.
  Calling everyone authors who puts words on a document and submits them to the public devalues the word so much, it makes it meaningless.

And then you mention:

  In order to join these organizations you have to earn ‘x’ amount of money over a single calendar year, where the specified amount for indie publishers is a *multiple* of the requirement for traditionally-published authors minimum income, because it is easier to make money by going indie

Facepalm. Let me translate that for you. You're proud of your "real authors" tax, basically. It works like this: If you run a marathon that takes say 4 hours usually, you're considered a "real runner" if you make the run with your legs shackled if you make it below 24 hours. But if you don't use shackles, you're only a real runner if you make the marathon below 4 hours. At the end of the marathon the fastest shackled runner gets a gold medal, and those who made it without shackles but slower than 4 hours get nothing.

Let me propose that this definition of a "real author" is the most arbitrary and meaningless award achievable. It conveys zero information about the quality of the author and is arbitrary biased to favor those who masochistically forgo better profits just so they can wear your meaningless "real author" badge of honor.

Not only is the criteria arbitrary and meaningless, you also reward "real authors" by exhibiting economic stupidity.

Are you really sure, that's what you wanted to write? Really?

lifeisstillgood• 12 years ago

Nonsense.

An author selected by a publishing house has passed through a set of gates before ink hits paper, this is true. But many many publishing house authors sell far far less, are read far far less than self published authors.

Let the market decide who is a "real" author by reading their works. it's not a perfect system, but it is the only real way.

Houshalter• 12 years ago

"Oh no! Barriers to entry are lower than they used to be!"

NateDad2• 12 years ago

Man, what a dick.

NateDad2• 12 years ago

To expound:

Why not be inclusive rather than exclusive? Isn't awesome so many more people can write now that the traditional barriers to entry have been lowered?

billyjobob• 12 years ago

I guess Van Gogh wasn't a 'real' artist since he didn't earn any money then.

greenyoda• 12 years ago

This article was self-published to the author's own blog[1]. So I guess he's not a "Real Author" then.

Also, his HN account apparently only exists for the purpose of self-publishing his own content to HN.[2]

Oh, the irony!

[1] "Michael Kozlowski is the Editor in Chief for the Good e-Reader News Source." (http://goodereader.com/blog/staff)

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=michaelkoz

Edit: Regarding footnote [1] above: I guess he can't call himself an "editor" either, if he's only the editor of his own, self-published blog. A Real Editor edits the work of Real Authors, after all.

cwoac• 12 years ago

Frankly, I think it is more interesting that the various official writer's guilds have a higher bar for entry for self-published "because it is easier to make money by going indie."

Self-Publishers should not be called Real Authors

Related Stories