I was just reading a reviewer’s blog that describes
why they don’t accept self-published (SP) books to review. Their main reasons were SP authors can have
bad manners and argue over reviews, SP books usually have substandard covers
and too many plot holes and grammatical mistakes. These reasons for the policy excluding SP
books made me laugh. Well, maybe not LOL
laugh, but it made me smirk a little.
I’m sure that there are SP authors that can’t take
a bad – or even less than perfect – review without firing off a heated email. Obviously,
that’s extremely bad form. It’s better
to find out where they live and stalk them. Just kidding. Really. But I know of traditionally published (TP)
authors that have done the same.
Recently, an author of a well-received, TP, first-in-a-series book
ridiculed many reviewers of the second when certain plotting details were criticized. And this author’s disparaging remarks were in
public forums and blogs.
I’ve seen a lot of fantastic TP covers, and many mediocre
TP covers as well. You know what I mean, all those covers with the author’s
name and the title in ginormous print, surrounding some okay photo or
illustration (like a smoking gun for a thriller or a shirtless, hunky guy for a romance) that must have taken at least five minutes with photoshop to design. Or
check out this blog entry Coveting Covers - Using
Stock Photos that shows how a number of TP books covers used the same stock
photo. Without really any alterations. And while a fantastic cover can help sell a
book, it shouldn’t necessarily mean that a less than fantastic one should
relegate your tome to non-reviewable.
The reviewer can certainly comment about the cover art as part of the
review, but to not review it at all based on their interpretation of the cover
art seems a bit harsh.
Which brings me to the final reason why these
reviewers won’t review SP work: SP authors can’t write worth shit. Now, I have read a lot of traditionally
published books as well as many self-published ones. And, for the most part, a fair percentage of
the SP stuff is a bit iffy when it comes to plotting, grammar and
spelling. But just yesterday, I was
reading a new book from a very popular paranormal romance author where she
wrote about one character saving another’s life by establishing an unobstructed
airway – in his ESOPHAGUS. Really? There’s a reason the procedure is called a
tracheotomy. Because one’s lungs are
attached to one’s TRACHEA. The esophagus
is what one’s food slips down en route to the stomach. And the author correctly calls it a
tracheotomy later in the book. How
did this get pass all of the TP editors, beta-readers and ARC reviewers? Plus, I already counted three typos, and I’m
only 75% through.
No comments:
Post a Comment