Is there a perception that book reviewers treat Self-Published books differently than Traditionally published ones?
I’m not sure where this train of thought came from, but it hit me dead-center as I was writing procrastinating on finishing a scene in my latest WIP that has been very fun and amazing challenging to write.
I’ve read more self-published/indie books than I’ve reviewed. The ones I’ve acquired on my own I haven’t reviewed for several reasons, but some of those reasons include not feeling the book was written professionally, feeling that the book was still in a rough-draft state, and generally disliking the book.
After some considerations, I realized I hadn’t reviewed some of these books because I had this mindset where if I couldn’t say nice things, I shouldn’t say anything at all.
Huh.
I don’t have the mentality about Traditionally published books. Why? I view these authors as professionals. Professionals can handle whatever opinions I might have about their book.
If I buy a traditionally published, large-scale publishing house book, all bets are off. If I don’t like it, you better believe I’ll rip that book apart. The simple truth is, there aren’t a lot of traditionally-published books I strongly dislike. There are some, but most I acquired years ago and never went bestseller. (For a reason, I assure you…)
But, when presented with books that haven’t been professionally handled or produced, I clam up. This usually means self-published. I shouldn’t do this.
Ah, time to make a quick distinction. Self-published books, where the author did all of the work, tend to be the least professionally produced as a general rule. (This isn’t always the case, and I’m stereotyping, but of the ones I got a hold of, this was the case.)
Independent publishers took more care with the general presentation of the book, but I have also seen books produced by them that had formatting problems for the kindle.
Moving back on subject.
Should self-published books get special treatment and blinders if they aren’t well written?
I want to say no, but the reality is, I have been wearing these blinders and walking around them like they’re made of glass. No one likes a piece of glass in the foot.
I think the problem is two fold.
First, I think the community and the fans are partially to blame. There are a few out there who will do anything to defend a book just because it self-published, indie published, or published by a small publishing house. I’ve experienced this first hand. (I will get around to reviewing more, but I have been working on critiquing other writers, working on my novel, and freelance writing. I have a novella and a pair of novels to read and review for my birthday!!)
I don’t like getting my tail-feathers burnt. It tends to be hurtful even though the point of a book review is to be honest about all elements of a book.
Second, I think is the general mentality that self-published and co. books aren’t to the same quality level as traditionally published ones.
It somehow makes me think of punching babies or doing something equivalently evil when treating these books the same as traditionally published ones.
Ouch. I can smell charred Rebecca already.
I want to hear from you what your opinions are. I do not mean to insult the competent, professional, and hard-working self/indie writers who do not fit this stereotype. This isn’t what this post is about.
It is about whether or not book reviews should treat these two types of published works differently.
For me, I think the answer is no, they should not be treated differently. The reality, however, is yes, they are.
What do you think?
