It's simply the act of being published that allows readers to say what they think of the author. Copyrights of any kind don't protect any published writer from readers having opinions. "Dissing" goes with the territory.
Honestly, I've yet to see a published author not encourage people to try and become as successful as they've been. I know overall traditionally published people look down on people who use self publishing as the easy way out, but frankly people who don't do their research have that coming. So I just have not seen someone actually say 'you suck because you're not published yet,' while I do see people say 'people who take money for art are icky.'
I've never met anyone who has said "People who take money for art art icky"; I have met people who say that making art only to get money is icky, or making art without trying to improve simply because you're successful is icky. I have seen people who think the type of art makes a person icky, especially if they are successful. And I have seen lots and lots of people (especially academic people, i.e. every art teacher I have ever had except maybe two) say that you should only make art for art's sake and if you don't, you are nothing better than an illustrator pandering to the public. I have heard people imply that if you are successful at doing one thing, and choose to continue doing that one thing because of your success rather than branching out and trying other things, then you are icky.
I am not saying published authors here, or on other writing sites I've belonged to in the past, or in college, or anywhere, have not encouraged people. But I am talking about how they treat others, how they say things, their attitude toward people who are just starting to write. I'm talking about people who treat having been published as if it entitles them to more respect or a better reputation, entitles them to expect everyone to just stop and listen to them, and in turn as if it entitles them to not have to listen to anyone else, especially people who have not been published.
So as to avoid any further drama here, I will use an example not from this site. I had a professor who was old and well-thought-of in the writing world, who was an honorary member of the faculty. He thought that because he was published and an honorary member of the faculty, he could just treat all of his coworkers in his department with disdain. He was awful. He'd snap at them in the hallways, talk about them behind their backs. He did the same with students he thought couldn't write. As soon as anyone asked him for an opinion, though, doesn't matter who you were or what he thought of you, he expected you to just bow down and bless him for taking the two minutes it took for him to tell you his thoughts. He expected you to follow them, too. If you didn't, he would lash out and complain about you and talk about you behind your back. (Luckily, I was on very good terms with him, but that doesn't mean it didn't bother me when I saw these sorts of things happen -- and they happened quite a lot.)
God, academics. I miss the debates, but not the ivory tower portion of it. Of course you can do art for art's sake; you've got another source of income! And, presumably, emotional release.
I have seen people essentially go with that blanket statement of 'ewww, money for art?!' and then furiously backpedal when they're asked 'what about the cases where the person is good enough to get paid for what they love?'
I can't say I have seen people expect more respect solely for being published, but in general the people who are published are the ones who've made a full-time commitment to writing and have been doing it for long enough to get money, and that's where they expect more respect. Definitely haven't seen the latter attitude of 'oh your opinion is worthless because you're not published,' likewise; it's 'your opinion without any sort of research behind it is worth less.' (And honestly, I used to think that selfpublished people were getting more rage than they deserved...and then I found a post dedicated to 'why trad pub sucks,' written by people who'd never managed to break into it.)
Oh yeah, there's people like that. Does that really have anything to do with the accomplishments and not the way the person handled being accomplished, though? I mean, if you start off 'gifted' (a polite way of saying 'smarter than average,' basically) you get set aside in a number of ways, and it bleeds over to the rest of your life. I've not had professors like that, either (fortunately!) but I have had some who don't tolerate idiots well, so come off as extra-intimidating.
I can't pass judgment there. I mean, I think there's a big gap in openly admitting that someone needs to be taken down a notch (and doing it constructively vs just to enjoy the process, too) versus thinking it; whichever one is seen as worst is up to an individual.
Does being published earn you one of those immunity badges like on those ridiculous reality tv shows , and we all have to quietly acknowledge their accomplishment? Ah, to be published AND ridiculed. That is bliss for an author, if you ask me.
Because success does not equate to quality. In an ideal world, things that are of the highest quality would succeed, and would succeed because of their quality. However, in capitalism (not to shit on capitalism here) you don't actually need to be good at anything; people just need to want to read you/listen to you/watch you/whatever for you to succeed. The world is unfair, but that doesn't remove people's right to complain that it's unfair, nor does it remove the validity of their complaints. In an ideal world, no one would murder people, but murder is illegal just about everywhere, and people are still trying to stop it. However, murder will likely never stop. Same with unfairness, and success coming without quality or effort. In an ideal world, success would come with quality and effort, and thus people complain about those who are exceptions.
I hope that answer is satisfying. People not only have the right to criticize published authors, but I think they should. The world should question and challenge why people are successful, why people are powerful, and why people are the way they are. It's not about jealously or disrespect; it's about understanding the world and hopefully making it a better place.
Publishing success equates to the quality of writing something commercial. I think that when speaking of 'quality' if pays to specify which quality you are considering. Otherwise it is like saying a food has a 'flavor', without going on to mention whether it is a hint of citron or a heavy fug of deceased rodent
In some conversations the quality of 'I liked it' seems to get implicitly elevated to the highest level. Of course that is always something worth discussing. But so is the opinion of the reading public and its various subsets.
Considering that this isn't about criticising a single author but more about people who criticise the notion that art for paid work is overall an issue (as I should've emphasised more strongly above, "the concept of getting paid because a person's writing appeals to an audience"), it's a little sideways of what I was aiming for.
People should criticise published authors—when they know what they're talking about. I'm all for pointing out that EL James' book glorifies abuse, but not for holding it up as the example of why all romance is trash or dissing on the bad writing when I haven't actually read it.
In my defense, I'm surprised that some of these things get published. But of course, I'm only one person, so I can't generalize that everyone likes the same things as me. Still.... WHAAT. And as said before, hating on the book, not its popularity or author.
Does this stem from my comment on that other forum post about Voice?
(Now "Voice" seems like a possessed creature or something. )
I don't understand why people hate on published authors just because they've been published, just as I don't understand why people hate on famous authors (whether their books are well-written or not). The readers drive the market, and ultimately, if somebody's famous, it's our doing far more than theirs. So hate on yourselves, haters.
Anybody mentioning it becomes a punching bag, too.
... So if I read romance novels a lot, which I do, does this give me a license to bitch about a few terrible examples from the genre? ... Seriously though, is 50 Shades even "romance novel" genre? I know it's marketed as erotica but I find it hard to categorise. The only thing it seems to fit into is fanfiction. And I say this without bitterness or snark.
I think it gives you a lot more license than someone who doesn't read them at all (aka me)--it wouldn't be good if you represented them as the standard for romance novels, but you can actually say 'here is a good romance novel, which this isn't.'
Yeah, I've no fucking idea whatsoever. Haven't read it, for one.
I always provide suggestions of good romance novelists, or even good erotica writers, if I'm shooting down one. There is no point being all "yeah that thing is a shit representation of this genre" if you can't illustrate what a good example of the genre is. ... And I guess 50 Shades is a good novel of a bad romance?
Well, it's certainly quite... outstanding. Perhaps you should, just for the experience.
To be particular one must just have a certain taste. I like well-written pieces with wit and charm, others may like something different. But I have no particular standard and will read just about anything.