Let’s Talk Bookish is a weekly meme, hosted by Rukky @ Eternity Books & Dani @ Literary Lion, where we discuss certain topics, share our opinions, and spread the love by visiting each other’s posts. It’s supposed to be posted on Friday, but being on time is hard and it’s better late than never.

This week’s topic is: should reviewers go “easier” on self-published authors?

So there’s lots of things to delve into today on that front. But first, let’s go back all the way to the beginning.

*dinosaurs roar in the background*

Wait, no, not that far back. How about we just start at what it actually means to be self-published.

The Different Faces of Publishing

Traditional Publishing

Author signs a contract to publish a book with a major publishing house (often one of the Big Five or its subsidiaries), where the writer will be in charge of writing and marketing the book, but also will have access to the publisher’s editor, cover artist, marketing team, and generally range of services. Often includes an advance and a low royalty rate if the author earns out of the advance. There is a high barrier to entry to this route.

Indie Publishing

A step between traditional publishing and self-publishing, where the publishing house is smaller, but offers services like access to editors, marketing, no author upfront charges, etc. Often includes no advance, but a higher royalty rate after costs for said services are paid off. There is a low barrier to entry in this route.

Self-Publishing

The author themselves is their own publishing team, bearing the burden of any upfront costs to publish the book. They are in charge of hiring a cover artist and/or editor, as well as all the marketing, if they so choose. There is no barrier to entry in this route.

The Stigmas around self-publishing

Now that we know the different types of publishing, let’s talk about the stigmas that surround self-publishing. Because rest assured, there are still plenty of stigmas, and that in and of itself can be a barrier. Here are a few particularly popular myths I’ve heard:

• If it’s self-published, it means it’s no good. I have read so many brilliant and wonderful self-published stories. I have also read some really poor self-published stories. Because there’s no real barrier to entry, of course there will be some books that arguably maybe shouldn’t have been published, but that’s not a good reason to discount them all. I think it’s easy to tell which self-published authors have put in the effort and not just released whatever hot mess came flying out of their fingertips.
  
• It must’ve only been self-published because no publisher wanted it. This could be true, but by and large, it’s not. A lot of authors have already decided the publishing path they want to take by the time their book is finished, which means they already knew that self-publishing was for them. For some people, self-publishing is just the better option. The reasons people choose to self-publish are many, but from my experience, it’s very rarely because no publisher wanted their manuscript.
  
• Self-published books are a mess because they aren’t edited. This is definitely a okay, sure, sometimes sort of a thing. But most professional self-published authors who want to do the thing and do it properly do hire editors. Sometimes multiple times (because developmental edits are different from line edits). And they ain’t cheap. Just because someone has self-published doesn’t mean they haven’t put time and care into their work, just the same.
  
• Self-published authors are somehow lesser than traditionally published authors. This is one of the most harmful I’ve seen. An author is an author. At the end of the day, we’re all slightly neurotic people with too many imaginary friends who are about 30 seconds from an emotional breakdown at any given time. The fact that people take different paths to publishing doesn’t say anything at all about the quality of their work.

So should reviewers treat self-published authors any differently when reviewing them?

My answer would be a resounding: NO! For so many reasons. But let’s see if I can come up with a few concise ones.

You do authors AND readers a disservice by not properly representing your thoughts about their work.

If you say something is “good” when you really mean “good for self-publishing,” that has totally different connotations. If your readers know what your rating system is and they see a four-star book, they’re expecting it to be a four-star book, not a two-star book rounded up because of the circumstances of publishing. You’re setting your readers up for failure and, in turn, the authors up for disappointment because those obviously aren’t their readers, which is clear if you’re transparent about your thoughts.

Reviews are meant to help potential readers make a decision about whether or not to pick up a book, and how can they do that if you’re not honest about your thoughts?

A reader isn’t checking reviews to see whether a book was traditionally published or self-published or if it’s good enough for a self-published book, etc. They want to know, objectively, is this book something I might enjoy reading? If you’re hedging your opinion because it was self-published, it hinders their ability to make that decision.

If you wouldn’t pull your punches for a two-star traditionally published book, why would you for a self-published book?

We’ve all read them. The books that you wonder, why did the publisher see in this manuscript anyway?! How did THIS one make it through?! Well, there are reasons, because publishing is complicated and publishers, ultimately, are in the business of making money and will try to put out only the things they think will accomplish that. Which means even great books can fall by the wayside if it doesn’t fit the market at just the right time, with just the right subject, and just the right buzzwords, and wearing just the right shoes, with bifocal glasses, skewed at a very cool 28 degree angle, in a pose that screams I have all the chill.

A book is a book, and all books matter!

Sorry. I had to. You should’ve seen it coming. Anyway, my point is, a self-published book should be comparable to a traditionally published book. If it’s not, then that’s notable, and if it impacted your enjoyment of it, you’d be right to take that into account for your rating. Good self-published authors put in a ton of work in order to deliver a great book, period. Not a “great for self-publishing” book. Just a great book, end of story.

Looking for some good self-published reads?

As always, I’ve totally got you covered! Here are some self-published books I’ve enjoyed. If you click the cover, it’ll take you to the Goodreads page.

       

           

Follow Me

• 
• 
•