I don't think you understand what it takes to get a book published. You have to think of it like getting a song recorded, or a spot on the NFL or MLB. It's not that easy. You just can't walk in and tell them to publish your book. And like the recording industry and professional sports, just because you haven't 'made' it there ... doesn't mean you're not good.
The "Ebook" has opened a ton of doors for many talented authors.
Don't be so quick to discount them.

Well, perhaps you need to do some research. Some of the books that publishers considered "not good enough to be legitimately published" include:

Dubliners - the James Joyce classic was rejected by 22 publishers.

Carrie - Stephen King's classic was turned down by 30 publishers.

Gone With The Wind - rejected 38 times!

...and even poor Harry Potter was considered not worthy by a dozen publishers!

With the advent of e-books, an author has an easy and affordable way to get his work into the hand of the public. Lots of crap? Sure, but to be totally dismissive of these books is a very closed-minded approach.

I'm very passionate about the money I get out of it. As Stephen King pointed out, if someone sends you a check for your writing and it doesn't bounce, you're a success. Who gives a shit about "legitimacy"?

It's odd that if a band goes the indie route, nobody says, "Well, BMG wouldn't put this out, so it must suck." There are certainly many books rejected by publishers for being the semi-literate rantings of a schizophrenic, but there are also many rejected for other considerations -- the marketing department says books about mummies don't sell, Stephen King has a book with a similar plot coming out, the company already has ten urban fantasies on the schedule for next year.

Didn't intend to set off a debate, but the discussion is interesting.

My only complaint about the self-published authors is that the Amazon Kindle boards have been inundated with self-promotion, back-scratching, and circle jerks (five star me and I'll five star you).

The fact that I make my living as an author and editor might suggest otherwise.

And still, none of these were self published. And even if they were, they wouldn't refute my "vast majority" statement in the least.

Unless you have something other than anecdotal evidence that you have observed, when you make such a bold, sweeping statement, it would be a good idea to insert a IMHO disclaimer.

I don't know if what you are claiming is true or not, but I have a hunch you have nothing other than your bias against self-publishing to back it up, IMHO.

It is true that self-publishing will allow authors who otherwise would not have been, to be published. I think we can agree on that. That is not an assessment of quality.

"my assessment" doesn't do it for you? Sheesh.

Apply the common sense test to it. Authors want to be published by real publishing houses. It comes with more money, advertising, placement, competent editorial services, etc. It stands to reason, therefore, that any author who is self publishing is doing so because he or she failed to place a manuscript with a publisher. In the vast majority of cases, that author has failed for a reason, and that reason is almost always that the manuscript just isn't very good.

Look at it this way. Some summer evening, find a baseball field and watch a semi-pro or independent league baseball game (or whatever the equivalent level of play is for your area). Look at the talent in this game. It stands to reason that any player good enough to be playing in the big leagues wouldn't choose to play at this level, where the pay is next to nothing. Most players do it for the passion of the game. Many of them probably had dreams of playing on the big leagues, but it didn't pan out for them.

Saying someone is a semi-pro baseball player doesn't necessarily mean he's not good enough to be a big leaguer. But it's a pretty damned good indication.

Ha, just noticed my mention there. I like to think of myself as in the middle of this argument. It's true, I tried to get the attention of Hard Case Crime for The Naked Dame, and I was rejected—more because of the extremely limited number of original novels that line accepts than because of any defects of my own story, according to Charles Ardai. And one look at the field of publishers accepting this kind of pulp manuscript convinced me to self-publish. I can't comment on the quality of my own work, really, but I can distinguish between what I've done and most of the garbage I'm seeing out there.

Ahh, and now your boisterous defense of traditional publishing makes sense.

It actually has more to do with my love of a well-written, professionally edited work of fiction or nonfiction. Look, like I said, I never meant to hurt your feelings. I didn't realize you self-published when I ranted on it. If I'd known, I would have dialed it back.

What I'm really saying is that e-books have made it a lot harder to know you're buying something of a certain level of quality. We can argue over whether there are merits to self publishing, and clearly we disagree, but you've got to admit that a complete absence of quality control results in a lot of self-indulgent trash.

The Da Vinci Code, easily one of the best selling books of the past 10 years, is one of the dumbest, most poorly written books I've ever had the displeasure of attempting to read. Self-publishing isn't the only place where you'll find a lot of self-indulgent trash.

To be fair, for every The Da Vinci Code, there's four Twilights.

Put me in the camp as totally disagreeing that 99 or 100% of indie/self published stuff is trash - utter nonsense. There is some EXCELLENT stuff out there.

You know, the worst ebooks I've seen have come from traditional publishers who throw up half-assed OCRed copies of catalogue titles.

Sure. That's what the market is for. And judging by some of the bestseller lists, the market is choosing the indie books.

No argument here. Although I rather enjoyed the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was a fine "beach read."

Ahh but that's my point. Often you don't realize it's complete trash because some no-talent author is good at flooding sites with glowing five-star reviews of his own trash. That was my original point - the wave of self published books (and I think you're with me to the point of saying a great, great many of them are complete garbage) has made buying e-books from new or unknown authors a lot more difficult.

Publishers do print a fair number of books that aren't very good. But at least a published book comes with the endorsement of someone who isn't one of the author's alter egos.

The only point where we seem to be disagreeing is on the point of scale. I say the vast, vast majority of it is trash. You seem to think it's somewhat less than that.

Woot is selling Kindle 2nd gens with 3G for $90. Today only, as usual.

Kobo announced a new touch screen eReader today. Looks like a pretty good device: its smaller than the Kindle, uses the same screen, and looks to be pretty quick with page turns, etc. Supposed to be shipping in June for $129. Here's a hands on preview from Engadget:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LEURVe02zAM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Apparently a new Nook will be revealed tomorrow, rumored to be touchscreen as well.

$139


6-inch Pearl E-ink touch-screen
2 month battery life
7.5 oz
Wifi only
2GB storage plus MicroSD expansion

Using the Pearl screen? Does it have the IR touchscreen like the Kobo?

Yes and yes

Most midlist authors can actually make quite a bit more through self-publishing than they can with the big 6 and most of these are now transitioning to publishing on Kindle where they can make 70% of their sales instead of 15-17% and probably going out of print before selling through their advances. JA Konrath's blog goes into great detail and he's had dozens of other career authors including NYT bestsellers who are now jumping ship to epublishing.

I am going to purchase that new Nook. Yes I am.