Blog Hop: Traditional or Indie?


Today’s Book Blogger Hop question is: Are you more willing to read traditionally published books than self-published (indie) books? Or do you not have a preference?

I’m open to either if the premise is intriguing and the writing is good.  I’ve read excellent indie books and terrible ones, and I’ve read excellent traditionally published books and terrible ones.

Indie books can sometimes have an issue where the writing is not quite as polished – there’s a particular “not quite there” style of writing that I’ve seen in authors who are still honing their craft. It’s hard to define, perhaps a kind of stilted quality, that I can usually recognize by page two if a book is suffering from it. I’ve only seen that particular issue with indie books, I think.

On the other hand, traditionally published books can be plagued by problems of predictability or trying to fit into specific molds because that’s what’s “in” right now.

And of course, there are a host of potential storytelling issues that any book can have, regardless of how it’s published.  And all sorts of great things that could happen in a story too.  Stories are stories, however they make it onto the page.

One thought on “Blog Hop: Traditional or Indie?

  1. I think both types of books are good, but the traditionally published books have a BIG advantage when it comes to publicity. I get two book recommendation emails (from Goodreads and Book Riot) each week, and I regularly listen to book interview podcasts (What Should I Read Next? and Moms Don’t Have Time to Read Books). Never in any of these sources have I seen an indie published book discussed or recommended. That’s a shame. I know good ones are out there, but how do they break through and get noticed?

Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s