This makes me sad. As an indie author myself you could argue that I’m biased, but as a reader I’ve got to say that I’ve read some fantastic indie novels as well as some terrible traditionally published books. The way we choose to publish doesn’t always have everything to do with it. Not all of us had no choice because we’ve been rejected a hundred times and felt this was the only way. Some of us, myself included, like the control and freedom being self-published brings.
There’s another post going around on Twitter where a traditionally published author slams indies as being awful. I’m not going to link to it, it has more than enough views as it is. The post itself is generic and unimaginative, which is rather amusing, but not the point.
My point is the final comment that the author made. They said that indies do not respect the written word the way traditionally published authors do. Now I have two problems with this.
First of all, there is this thinking that traditionally published authors and books are somehow purer artists. They produce books of higher artistic value than indies.
I want to know where exactly that thinking comes from. Of course we know it comes from fragile egos and arrogance, but I mean at a baser more logical level. The idea seems to be that if a bunch of gatekeepers, editors and…
View original post 384 more words