There’s a whole lot of chatter out there on the Internet these days about self-publishing. Some people still think self-publishing is a secondary option to traditional publication, some fear a deluge of poorly edited books, some are heralding self-publishing as not only the way of the future, but are fast proclaiming anyone who foresees a future with traditional publishers a hopeless dinosaur.
(Speaking personally, I think there’s room for all models in the new era, we can all get along, and I’m a bit confused about why these debates have taken on such an ideological/religious tenor in some circles. But I suppose that’s not the stuff great blog posts are made of.)
Back to the question at hand: would you consider self-publishing? Under what circumstances?
Poll below! (you’ll need to click through if you’re reading on an RSS reader or via e-mail).
SSB says
Scratch only. The ADD is acting up again.
folksinmt says
With the evolution of the ebook and self-promotion on the Internet, do you think that self-publishing will always have that "you're not quite good enough to be published" stigma, or do you think that will soon be a thing of the past?
J. T. Shea says
If the publishing dinosaurs do die out, I have a completely original plan. Let's get their DNA from flies that sucked their blood and then got stuck in tree sap that later turned into amber. Then we fill in the gaps with reptile DNA (among other stupid mistakes) and clone them on a secret island theme park off the coast of Central America. Then we invite families with children to get eaten…I mean entertained by the revived dinosaurs.
I can see it now. 'Run, Lex! It's the Elsevierosaur! Oh no! There's Tyrannosaurus Random! And there's a Scholasticus right behind you! Not only will they tear you apart limb-from-limb and devour your remains, they'll try to give you only 25% of the Ebook net!'
D.G. Hudson says
It's better to consider all options if you want to be realistic.
I wouldn't totally rule it out. That decision would depend on the type of story, the genre, and the reactions that were generated via rejected submissions.
I'd prefer to have an agent assist with the publishing end of the process.
Brian Centrone says
Self-Publishing isn't the taboo it used to be and more and more writers are turning to it as the market gets harder and harder to crack.
For me, I still fell that having a publisher publish my book is a right of passage in a sense. It's the notion that you have been accepted. Someone out there thought you were good enough to take that leap of faith.
I am considering self publishing side projects like a collection of my published short stories with some new stories thrown into the mix. I think it would be a good way to promote myself and my writing, as well as something for the fans. All my stories in one place – especially since most of them are not readily available.
But as for the novel, at this stage, I need that validation.
Anonymous says
I self-published after nice rejections ("well-written but the space is crowded") and nearly making it to the show (manuscripts requested and reviewed).
It wasn't the quality of my work that held it back — it was perceived marketability.
Amazon Kindle came along several years after I finished my first book, and I took advantage. Now I'm getting nice fat electronic deposits from Amazon every month.
Would I do it again? Yes. I love retaining my rights, controlling pricing, cover art, and editorial. I love real readers telling me they love my books.
The money has been a blessing. I'm paying for college educations. Sometimes you do what you have to do to help your children, and they are proud to say to their friends, "my mom is a best-selling Kindle author!"
When the stigma of being self-published burns? I just rub some money on it.
Doug Pardee says
For me, a big consideration is "print or e-book"? I don't think I'd want to self-publish in print. I don't think I'd want to go traditional for e-book. Those are my own biases.
If/when I ever get something completed, I strongly suspect I'll be going pure e-book. I think that within a few years the percentages (market% x royalty%) are going to favor the self-published e-book—for most narrative fiction, anyway.
I personally don't need the validation of a 'Big 6' publisher, and I don't need to have the physical book with my name on the cover. That makes the decision easier for me than for many others.
Lindsay B says
I'm going to seek an agent for one novel and self-publish the other, so how's that for voting between the lines? 😉
I do internet marketing for my day job, and I just want to take a stab at creating a "product" of my own for once and seeing how I can do with selling it.
ryan field says
No. I wouldn't want to take on all that extra work.
But I do have a huge sense of admiration for those who do invest their time, money, and have the courage to go that route. I also think they may be on to something that's only going to increase and become more popular in time.
Claire Farrell says
I've experimented by self-publishing short stories. It's exceeded my expectations and I've discovered I love all aspects of publishing despite it being a huge learning curve for me. I am going to self-publish my longer work as soon as I can afford to pay for editing.
I've never considered traditional publishing so I've nothing to lose. I think self publishing is a better fit for my personality.
Victoria says
I wouldn't buy or read a self-published book. I've been to Authonomy, I know what unpublished works read like without the benefit of editing and polishing. Though I've no doubt there are some gems in there, I don't have time to search through them myself. As a reader, I rely on the publishing houses to screen out the worst of the world's writing; I'm just not interested in seeing the dregs of the world's writing unfiltered.
It's like the difference between buying music from a backyard band and a band professionally produced by a record company. I wouldn't waste my money on the former. I'd trust if they were good enough, they'd eventually be published traditionally and I'd find them then.
I realise a lot of people use the 'subjective' line to explain why their work isn't getting picked up, but so often it actually seems like that's just something they say to make themselves feel better. Maybe it's simpler than that; they just don't have a good enough story for someone to buy it yet.
There's so much on the market and so many different tastes catered for that I trust the best gets there.
For the same reasons, I'm not interested in joining the ranks of the self-published. I want to be good enough to be published the legitimate way.
Henri says
I just decided to go down the self-publishing route, after years of refusing to consider. Here's one of the reason why…
https://www.alanrinzler.com/blog/
That's the blog address from a publishing insider, Alan Rinzler.
Anyone interested in self-publishing should check out his fascinating blog.
Adam Heine says
Re: ideological/religious tenor. In hacker circles, this is what's known as a holy war. It happens when people try to pass off personal value choices as objective evaluations. Obviously it's not limited to obscure hacker issues.
I'd consider self-publishing if and only if (a) I didn't get published and (b) I had reason to believe total strangers would buy my book. That second one is still very much a sticking point.
Joanna says
I did self publish my book and it sold very well. Now it has been picked up by a publisher. I think self publishing is a great first step for a writer Yes, it is a great feeling when your work is validated by an agent, editor or publishing company but I know I'd never have made it to this point had I not first taken the plunge on my own. Go for it…
Colleen says
No. I respect those who self-publish, but it's not for me. I like the idea of having a publishing house standing behind me and supporting me, no matter how small they are. I've published poetry with small presses to date, and have had a great experience with genuinely helpful editors who helped me expand my market and place my work into the hands of folks who really wanted it. I also appreciate that having been published by a house gives me the sort of chops I need in academia – you can't make a tenure track position with self publishing. And there seems to be a reason – a number of self-published works I was happy to support have been both poorly edited (for content) and poorly copy edited. Until those who self-publish are willing to invest in editors, having someone else publish you and giving you that feedback can be really essential. Again – many self-published authors do it successfully and know the value of revision, editing, and proofreading…but the large number of those who *don't* end up making me suspicious of the whole practice. In the end, to each their own. As a librarian, writer, and booklover, as long as people are reading, I dont care how the material gets published; I care that people are encouraged to love reading.
Natasha Fondren says
I couldn't vote in your poll!
To me, self-publishing is an equal option to all others. I believe in diversification. I wouldn't do it and rule out NY, I wouldn't do it only if I didn't find a publisher for a project, and I wouldn't just reserve it for side projects.
Self-publishing is really just another publisher to consider. It depends what's best for the project, and I hope that I will be diversified enough one day to have my works in all pots.
Anonymous says
Yes. No. Sure. Never! Maybe.
How should I know?
I tell stories. What does that have to do with publishing?
Right now, I don't see any attractive way to get my stories into the hands of many readers.
So I'll keep reading blogs like this and watch for changing time.
Maybe an idea I can live with will pop up. Maybe I'll win the lottery and buy a publishing house. I hear they're available cheap right now.
In the meantime, I'll just keep telling stories.
tjpfau
Anonymous says
I would go for it if I had a very niche audience ( I did speeches on X say, and then sold a book at my seminar. Maybe poetry too.A local history book. Things that don't appeal to a wide audience)
Other than that, self-pubbing means, well. it means you don't think it has wide appeal OR you can't convince an agent or publisher it can. Which means it probably doesn't. (note the probably. It may do. But have you read the slush pile? It may very well not) You sell you work to your mates and unless you are very marketing savvy AND an awesome editor…you won't win. Unless you have your niche and/or you're bloody great at marketing.
PS – I hate the word verification. It'd be nice if it was actually a word….Because sometimes I can't make out what it's meant to be saying….8 times trying so far! If they were actual words it'd be easier to figure out what they are! Do I need to post this that badly? Actually if it does it one more time it can go screw itself.
Edit: fifteen times! I'm only doing this now to how how chuffing hard it is to comment here. If I had sight problems it'd be worse….I wouldn't mind but I'm stone cold sober. Why can't I just post a damn comment?
Fuck it. In the end I had to do it anonymously or stab the screen. Like it matters who I am. And stuff. But it'd be nice not to be anonymous
Maureen Gill says
Sorry, but I didn't labor very long in the hostile vineyards of traditional publishing and can't understand why anyone else would either. I was very lucky and attracted excellent agents so it's certainly not that I was desperate or in dire straits. In fact, I received 5 very positive responses requesting chapter samples out of my first (and I swear my last) 53 query letters and then very quickly moved into serious discussions. This all happened within 8 weeks of beginning the query process but it was a process that left me feeling debased and immediately looking for alternatives. Why? I could write volumes on the subject (and most likely will later) but I think the pivotal moment came when I realized I just didn't have to grovel and toady and play "Mother May I?" No, maybe it was when an agent told me that under today's publishing business model Steinbeck couldn't get published. No, I think it might have been after another agent told me that even if we moved forward my book wouldn't be in print for about a year. No, wait, maybe it was when an agent suggested I "dumb the book down" because the average American reader can't "deal with complex." (Oh yeah? You ever watch the TV show "Lost" or see the movie "Crash"?) No, it was… OK, you get the point but I knew my decision was dead on right when I received an email from an agent last week (10/1) responding to my query dated May 4th (no business can operate in today's markets with that kind of response time; it's archaic). My experiences with assisted publishers like Smashwords and CreateSpace have been great. Mark Coker at Smashwords actually answered one of my emails within an hr. of me sending it to the company on a weekend! Contrast that to the agent’s response that took 5 months! Good God. These new companies are professional, have outstanding turnaround time, unbelievable customer service, and now offer extensive marketing and distribution strategies and avenues. What they don’t do is play Cultural Gatekeeper; instead they let the marketplace sort the wheat from the chaff and that works for me.
Mary McDonald says
I have one self-published and hope to have my second (sequel to the first) in the next few months. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever submit a query to an agent again.
Becca says
I have considered it, but only for side projects for the time being. For example, a collaboration with a friend that I'm working on.
Heidi C. Vlach says
I'm looking into self-publishing and marketing options. Agents and editors have indicated that my work is too unusual to fit in with traditional publishing's expectations of high fantasy. But there are plenty of people on the Internet with non-conventional interests. Instead of spending years telling people that it'll work and waiting for more form rejects, I'd rather show that the niche exists.
Laurie Boris says
I'd do it…if I had a well-edited, market-perfect manuscript that I couldn't get an agent or publisher to pick up. With the popularity of e-readers going up, I would test first as e-books, then a short print run with an excellent cover.
Steppe says
I've come to see self publishing as the minor league farm system of traditional publishing. If you have a powerful plot that's well written and you've sourced it with a competent editorial check-up and some selected beta readers and they saw value why let being in the minor leagues bum you out so much you never make it to the magors. Comments here indicate theirs no real stigma left to self publishing as long as you retained all the original property rights. So, it seems like a baby steps lead to a walking and running environment, if self publishing has been used to drive the process forward.
MA Fat Woman says
Seriously, do the math. Other than those that have commented that they have been traditionally published, maybe one person here will be published the old-fashioned way. For the rest, if you ever want to see a book cover with your name on it, why not try self-publishing?
Anonymous says
Personally, I'd sooner let my work sit in a drawer. There's just no quality control with self-publishing. That's not to say there's not a lot of good self-published books out there, but there's also just so many poorly written books. I will say I think it works much better with nonfiction, than with fiction though.
And I also wonder how many people seriously consider small independent presses any more?
– Bill "Classic" Camp
Ganz-1 says
I'd consider it, sure. Heck I even thought I'd do it only to back down when I realize what I need is achievable for free if I publish in the traditional way.
Nancy says
Personally, I wouldn't self publish. It is quite costly, not to mention all the other production hats one must wear in addition to the endless hours spent with author professionalism.
If you have very deep pockets and want your book in print, no matter the quality, then by all means, self publish. The only other reason I see to self publish is if you need tenure at a college or university. "Publish or perish." Otherwise, to pay the price for a self pubbed work, plus the cost of my time to read such works presents a toss-up. If the writing is acceptable, the story usually isn't, or vice-versa, or both may be equally so-so and not worth my interest. Every self pubbed book I've looked at has some kind of editing, construction, or layout problems, which are usually the responsibility of the author and go unchecked.
If I'm going to publish my work I want to make sure it's good enough to be acquired by a major pub house so that it will garner the respect I hopefully believe it deserves.
Kimberly Moore says
The world is changing, publishing is changing, I am self publishing. Children's picture books are too hard to break into. Especially with something different. https://www.arithmeticvillage.com
Brendan J. Paredes says
I think the question isn't quite as simple as it was. Grissom self-published his first book when he couldn't find a traditional publisher and sold his book out of the back of his car to brick and mortar stores. That is an expensive way to go. However, with the broader release of e-Books in the last couple of years, the entry cost has significantly dropped.
There is a writer, who's name and book elludes me, but gained a fair amount of success selling her book on a character that turns into a Tiger or something through Amazon exclusively, till she was picked up by a traditional publisher. If memory serves, she sold 50,000 copies, built up a following, and became much more attractive to a traditional publishing house since she had established herself before hand. The cost of having to market a new writer and book were substantially reduced, and they signed her for her third book and to rerelease her first two books again.
As marketing money decreases and traditional houses retreat more to supporting and heavily marketing top ten writers who are sure winners, this may become the way in which future writers gain entry more often than not. The risk of supporting a new, untried writer then would be negated and they would be buying, for all intents and purposes, a proven product with a higher profit margin.
Personally, I see this more as a last resort approach. Since e-Books are still not a huge portion of the potential market, you are essentially restricting sales to those willing to indulge in the new technology. The broader market of "Book Lovers" is lost until a publisher picks up your contract and releases hard copy editions. Ultimately I think this will make it more difficult for new writers to break in, since the phenomina of writers such as Paterson with that broad experience of marketting is rare. While the cost from self-publishing hard copy editions is eliminated, you are now having to learn successful self-marketting techniques which can be hit or miss, and may turn off many readers through poor marketing approaches.
Still, as a last resort…
Ty Johnston says
Since I make my living as a self-published writer, I had to vote "YES." I'm not getting rich, but my sales are a little better month after month, and I'm paying my bills.
I got into self-publishing for one reason: Finances. I'm a former newspaper editor, lost my job and two years later still haven't found another one. Not sure I want to at this point. If my sales continue to climb, by the end of the year I'll be making as much as I ever did in journalism.
As those who have a strong vocal disdain for self publishing and self publishers, I'm sorry we can't all just agree to disagree.
Or I suppose I could go to my wife and say, "Sorry, honey, I can't pay the bills anymore. Some people on the Internet showed me the errors of my ways, that self-publishing is full of it. I guess we'll have no power or running water next month."
AndrewDugas says
Self-publishing is not just an alternative to traditional publishing, it's often a path to a traditional book deal. The biggest publishing phenom of the 90s was initially self-published and sold out of the trunk of the author's car.
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?
The Celestine Prophecy.
AndrewDugas says
@Nancy
Self-publishing expensive? What decade are you posting from? You can self-pub for FREE, e-book or print. Go to smashwords, scribd, or lulu.
Alex Beecroft says
I self published my first Fantasy novel and was relatively OK with the result. It was nicely produced, it cost me nothing, and it earned me a couple of hundred pounds while it was available. I've since had it accepted by a small press publisher and it's due to be re-issued next year with extra editing and a new cover.
It was nowhere near as successful in terms of copies sold, or exposure in bookshops, as my traditionally published book, but it was certainly not a bad experience.
Anne Lyken-Garner says
I know this will get lost with all the other comments on this post. (This is why I don't normally leave comments here).
However, I just wanted to say that I have self-published. The thing is, traditional publishers still ask you to help market your own book. I don't think they're willing to go the full hog and finance the marketing themselves.
This is one of the main things traditional publishers used to have over self-publishing. Not being willing to do this has meant that more and more authors will (at least) consider publishing themselves and get *all* the proceeds for *all* the hard work.
Scathach Publishing says
My book went on Smashwords three days ago, should be on Amazon in about a week or two.
A lot of the people who wouldn't self-publish don't really seem to understand what is meant "now." Someone mentioned vanity publishing, for instance.
Vanity publishing is where you pay someone lots of money to publish your book. Self-publishing is where you publish it yourself.
Self-publishing costs are low. I know three different cover artists, one doing covers for $80 an hour (between 1 to 3 hours per cover) one doing covers for $150 no matter how long it takes.
Editing costs vary, between $20 to $60 an hour, with the amount of hours involved varying, too. It depends how much your book needs edited. Critique groups and beta readers will keep costs down.
It is viable, not too expensive, and can make you a lot of money. (Maybe). Just look at Amanda Hocking, who makes $10,000 a month and had a self-pubbed book go into Amazon in the top 25 books.
Smashwords will publish anything, but a lot of people don't know that their is a minimum quality requirement (for example, a crappy photoshop cover done by the artist won't pass) before Amazon or anywhere else will take on your e-book.
Some people mentioned Lulu (little more than a vanity publisher) or Create Space. You'd be better off going with Lightning Source, but why not keep it e. Ebooks have taken over print sales on Amazon.
I'm fairly amazed at the poll's results. A year ago far more people would not have considered self-publishing.
Hillsy says
Seems to me the unsuccess (I won't use the word 'failure') of a novel is based on 2 factors:
1) Quality
2) Marketability
(I'm deliberately ignoring the query system)
There appears to be an ugly muddying of the two which taints both e/Self Publishing AND the mainstream publishing industry itself.
Rejection on 1 factor DOES NOT implicitly imply the other. It doesn't mean that all rejected manuscripts are just drek, and that e-pub will be awash with unedited, unreadable pap. However, it also doesn't mean that all rejected manuscripts deserve a chance on the open market. Go to Authonomy if you don't believe me.
Both reasons are very seperate, and both potentially fatal to any hopes of traditional publishing. e-publishing solves the problem of marketability. We have yet to find a solid, provable measure of quality.
Rik says
For poetry, I think self-publishing is a viable option; most poetry publishers are independent or micro-publishers offering editing and design to the end product, but little in the way of promotion. Plus there's a grand heritage of self-publishing – some big names have put their hands in their own pockets to finance their first books.
On the novel side of things, I'm not so convinced. Reading a novel is a much more time consuming endeavour for the average reader, and they don't want to waste their time (or money) on an unknown, unrecommended book. Without name recognition, reviews or word-of-mouth recommendations from friends, readers are highly unlikely to press the buy button.
Mike says
I've successfully self-published in the form of newspaper serial stories, but that was because (1) I was able to work profit-sharing deals with highly qualified artists rather than pay them a lump sum up front, and (2) I was well-established in the world of newspapers in education so I had a strong edge in marketing to a very tight-knit professional community. (Notice I haven't said a thing about quality of writing.)
I've thought about self-publishing in books, but I don't have the kind of platform you need to be able to get a book into the stores, the schools, the libraries and ultimately the hands of individual readers. I know a teacher who is quite successful at this — she's talented, but she's also energetic and well-connected in the right places.
What I'd like — and this is pure fantasy, but it's what it takes — is to find someone who shared my vision of what matters and how to say it, and also has that access to the stores, libraries and schools.
Which is why there are agents and publishers. Any fool can hit a "print" button these days. It's what comes next that matters.
Karen A. Chase says
I think I would go with self-publishing but with some caveats. I would absolutely work with a freelance, reputable editor to make sure my work was tight. No type of publishing can help a bad story.
I would absolutely set aside budget and time to work with a PR person. I've my own marketing/design firm, so I can manage large-scale projects, but I would essentially create a team around me to replace what publishers "should" be doing. PR, event planning, social media planning and monitoring, etc. With the advent of e-books, I'd try to corner that market first before handling distribution of printed copies.
KK says
After having been rejected for 2 years now, I am in the process of self-publishing with someone local to me who happens to have started a publishing company of her own because of the frustration of being passed over by the traditional publishing route.
This is similar to me to the discussion last week on banned books – just because you are rejected doesn't mean it isn't good. Maybe it's not banning a book, but an agent is preventing it from being published. That agent is not the end all of getting published. It's just their opinion. It feels like you're being banned and it's because of the opinion of one person.
I happen to think the agents I have queried just don't get my book. I find it stunning how agents who sell books for middle grade kids don't remember what it was like to think like one. The publisher I'm working with likes the story even though she doesn't quite get it, and has even complimented me on the main character's name. She is a published writer as well, of a middle-grade book but her sensibilities are very different from mine. It doesn't stop her from recognizing good writing and seeing potential.
I did not want to go through getting a license and all the paperwork required to sell on my own, but I have had too many people who know about my book and want it not to. I can't help it if agents are running scared because of the changes and don't consider it a sure thing.
The marketing aspect of selling books suck royal, which is why I had hoped to get an agent, but in the end, I'll end up doing it myself and not have to pay someone else who's heart isn't in it. I've sold ads for newspapers before, so I know what I have to do. That helps, but doesn't mean I wanted to do it.
I didn't vote in the poll because none of them are quite right – I am ABOUT to be self-published which means yes, but doesn't mean I would NEVER consider traditional. Kind of silly to make that a caveat to say yes.
If an agent calls me after I sell a million, he/she will be soundly rejected.
Scott Marlowe says
I'm just glad there are other viable options nowadays, and I think the world is big enough for more than one model.
For me, I already have a career. Writing fiction is something I do in my spare time and I like that I can get my writing in front of readers w/out the pains of having to obtain agent/publisher approval. I'd rather readers decide via comments, ratings, etc.
Anonymous says
I have read two self-published books. My purchases were based solely on a blog where the author complained that she was not getting a fair shake, that no one understood her, that only crap was being published, that she would have to wait until after her death to achieve fame and distinction. I bought two of her books to give her a fair chance. They were, in a word, awful. I actually threw one out because I would have been embarrassed if someone saw it.
Now does that mean I won't buy another self-published book? Of course not. But I'm going to be a little more skeptical than with something that has been vetted by the traditional publishing model. (And yes, traditionally published books can be a disappointment, can see poorly written, etc, but I have never read any such book that was anywhere near as bad as the self-published ones.) What it would take now is a story that interested me and the ability to see some of the writing–perhaps an excerpt on the author's website or the look inside feature on Amazon. Or the gushing praise of someone I trust.
Gerhi says
Dear Nathan,
Your poll is skewed. You can use self-publishing and mainstream publishing for different projects.
That does not make either a side project. A professional speaker I know has sold 27 000 copies of a self-published book. With a book that would never be published mainstream.
I believe you should be flexible to use the system that fits the purpose. Before you can ask if you would self-publish you should ask why and what are you writing.
Dawn Maria says
As a fiction writer, I don't see self-publishing as the way to go. Perhaps if I had a non-fiction project. I have yet to meet someone who has had success with self-publishing. It's still very difficult to get newspapers/TV shows to take you seriously for reviews and promotion.
Although this isn't the case in every situation, I feel that many people choose self-publishing to have the book in their hand and ability to say, "I'm a published author!"
Given the power of internet marketing tools, I can see why many people feel having more control over the destiny of their project is a better choice. Right now, I don't see any self-publishing house that has the distribution power of a traditional house.
Anonymous says
If I were an agent I'd be VERY interested in an author who had successfully self-published and sold thousands of ebooks.
Such a person is a self-starter, knows how to take advantage of marketing tools and networking online (and in many cases, has become an expert beyond what can be found within the ranks of traditional publishing staffs), and has built a platform. In short, this person is a real go-getter — someone who treats publishing as a business.
If there's a stigma to being successful I'm all for having it. Sure, there are many who publish crap, but it doesn't sell (the readers are smart about vetting, and word of mouth is the most powerful sales tool in publishing).
ANY author who is selling thousands of books is legitimate, whether they are self or traditionally pubbed.
Crap doesn't sell, so the self-pubbed authors you see who are highly ranked on Kindle store are selling a marketable product at their price points, the same as the big publishers.
It's like any other product — quality and value sell. A Porsche by any other name or manufacturer is still a Porsche.
There are plenty of gems in the slush pile. Now the readers find them instead of the industry gatekeepers. Do you have a gem? The fastest way to find out is to put it up on Kindle store (for free – it costs nothing, no ISBN required). Don't wait for a handful of overworked agents to find you after dozens of rejections and years of waiting in their queue.
The paradigm has shifted. Indies are the new midlist.
Anonymous says
At this point I don't think I'd consider self-publishing, but ask me if in a year or two; If I still haven't sold the book, I might think differently then.
Anonymous says
I believe self-publishing is changing the landscape of the publishing business, although I don't think it is or ever will be the death knell for traditional publishing.
For me, it all depends on how I feel about my marketing skills. If I don't think I can successfully market my book on my own, I'll probably seek traditional publishing. Although I suppose I could hire a marketing team even if I self-publish.
And, Nathan, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the ideological tenor of the debate. Thank you for pointing that out. I'm starting to think that a person can't have an opinion on anything anymore without it turning into a fiery festival of fetid foul-mouthery. Breaks my heart.
Ermo says
Self-publishing reeks of the stigma of "not good enough for traditional publishers." And whether or not that's true, who wants their book associated with that? I don't see how that negative connotation is going to improve when more people are self-publishing e-books.
I have nothing against the people that do it. I'm sure there are many, many great books out there that were published that way but I don't have the time to be the filter, and my guess is the majority of people out there don't have that kind of time either.
Malia Sutton says
I think it's important to note that author Alex Beecroft, who commented above and talked about her self-published book, has garnered an excellent reputation as an author, gained a great deal of respect and admiration from her peers, and has built a good fan base within her genre.
Along with thousands of other readers, I'm a huge fan of her books.