In return indie authors claim there is good and bad writing everywhere. Traditional publishing routes are not the arbiters of "good" however much they may wish to be - let the public decide, is the cry.
I can see both sides, if I'm honest. God knows there are a LOT of books out there. Books are even given away these days. It used to be only one or two, but now there are hundreds. My own kindle is full of books I didn't have to pay for, and am not sure I will ever get round to reading. Some of them are indeed truly awful. I accept my own first effort left a lot to be desired - particularly in it's need for an editor - but my God, if even I can spot the errors to the extent I can't finish the book then it must be bad. I understand the challenge of balancing cost of editing cover etc with how much you are ever likely to make on a book, but there is a piece about personal pride, and if you actually expect someone to part with money for a book, then there are some quality minimum standards that should be adhered to.
BUT - the "traditional" authors need to accept the world has moved on. The virtual world allows a level of democracy (for want of a better word) that means being with a publisher is no longer an entitlement to the highest sales.
The publishers need to understand digital channel marketing better, while the self published brigade need to invest in the traditional skills of publishing. Then the public will ultimately decide. Do they always get it right? No - just look at some of the talent competitions on TV. But they are the paying audience, and as we all know - the customer's always right.
