Why the stigma? I followed a mini flair-up on the AAR message board yesterday in which one writer basically trashed epublishing (well, her epublishing experience). Of course her message was followed with the predictable (well written) rounds of posts defending the editorial integrity at various epublishing houses.
Is there such a difference in the quality of “regular” print publishing (romance) and epublished books? How can one make such a sweeping statement? I like some ebooks and hate some. Same goes for print. Of course, it’s pretty damned hard to open a mass market print publishing house. If everything stinks, folks will notice pretty quickly. It’s a lot easier to start an epublishing house and stink. Not easy–I didn’t say easy.
But this got me thinking about the bigger question. A lot of writers and readers (and reportedly agents and NY editors) don’t consider epublishing…well…publishing at all. Some council that writers should not even mention their epublishing experience in queries and pitches. Hmmn. Surely this message needs to be revised a bit. I’ve watched so many fellow romance writers land nice contracts recently, and I don’t think their sales at EC and other spots hurt them one bit. Of course, the lines are getting a little blurry, aren’t they, with trade books from a number of “epublishers” now on the shelves at Borders and available online?
Yep, I know, when your pals ask where they can buy your books, and you reply “online,” you can draw a very blank, if not insulting look. Why? I purchase a LOT of stuff for a university every day, and most of it is done online. I don’t walk into a mall to do it. In fact, I try not to ever walk into a mall. Sure, I sighed a bit when I visited my local independent bookseller the other day and ran my hand across the lovely covers.
Is epublishing growing, or gaining legitimacy through the houses that also put books into bookstores and onto Amazon, get reviews in RT, etc. Or are we just hacks trying to kid ourselves? What do you think?