I love Entertainment Weekly. That crisp magazine in my mailbox each Friday is like weekly Christmas without the travelling. In a word: Heaven!
But last week, I read an article that kind of threw me. Titled 'The Hottest Self-Published Books,' the article talks mostly about Amanda Hocking and John Locke and how their self-pubbed books are, well, not so awesome.
Two points, then I want your feedback.
1. I never agreed that book reviews, whether on personal blogs or other media, should always be happy, fluffy puppy stuff. Each one of us looks and acts differently, we like different foods and colors and animals and BOOKS, so I may not love a book that rocks your casbah (yep, rocks...your casbah). But I am against bashing, and that's why the article shocks me. Its language is downright harsh, calling Hocking's latest "a bunch of goopy, romantic nonsense." Yikes. That, my friends, is bashing.
2. I sit firmly on the fence about self-publishing. Is it a valid option for authors? Sure. Have I considered it? Nope. That's my personal choice and for personal reasons, the biggest of which is that I don't have an inkling of a clue how to successfully market my work. Is everyone going to have Amanda Hocking's success? NO! I haven't read any of her books, but she's a rarity, not a rule. Should self-published books be treated like any other book? I think so. Yes.
So, with those two things in mind, I suppose the author of the EW article reviewed Hocking and Locke's books as he would any other book. I've read movie and music, and yes, even book reviews in EW that didn't hit me like this one, but holy hot dog! My mind was blown.
Thoughts? Did you read the article? Have you read any of Amanda Hocking's books? How about John Locke's? What did you think?